home
RSS
Your Take: Commenters on doomsday leader's end of world revision
May 25th, 2011
09:49 PM ET

Your Take: Commenters on doomsday leader's end of world revision

This week's Belief Blog story on doomsday leader Harold Camping claiming he still expects the world to end on October 21, even after the apocalyptic events he predicted for Saturday failed to materialize, fetched nearly 5,000 comments.

Lots of you left tongue-in-cheek ripostes to Camping's insistence that he merely misinterpreted the Bible's guidance about Judgement Day:

Cleveland
The end of the world is a big deal. Preach on, brother. Since the end is surely coming, I would like to help you and your congregation by accepting all of your money since you won't be needing it. I imagine that all of us sinners will be buying & selling right up to the end, and I for one would like to relieve you of the trouble. Besides, I saw the new SLS this year & have a pretty good idea that I could have it if all of you paid for it.

johnmenacherjr
So when is this nutbag running for the Republican presidential nomination?

Many commenters used the May 21 doomsday movement to whack Christians or to make a case for atheism:

Richard Cheese
Is it really going to take the rapture for Christians to go away? Can't they just take a hint?

Kathleen
Alone in a dark room ... sad ... depressed or whatever is ailing our heart. That is the time we are most vulnerable to believe that god is there. But wishing doesn't make it so. If the world is too complex to have been created by god, then how is it that god, who is supposedly far more complex than the whole universe, came to be by accident? If I could get a logical answer to this question, I might believe that god exists.

Jesus
The Bible is a fairy tale. It's make belive bs for people who are not leaders, for followers, for sheep.

Such attacks brought out defenders of religion:

bob
Can't see gravity either, but you would say that we can measure it by its effect. After all it is scientific truth that for there to be an effect, there must be a cause. We can't see God but logic must prevail when we see the effects of everything around us. Creation. It's orderly and incredible. Yet, you would probably say it came about by mere chance or accident. If this is true, why can't we with our intelligence duplicate something that came about by accident? Why can't we create something from nothing? Why can't we create life from nothing? Wow, which takes more 'blind faith'? Believing something happened by chance just so perfectly to result in this universe - something we cannot duplicate, or admitting that there is someone a lot smarter than mankind that has done this?

Tim
Your assumption about all Christians being ignorant fools is actually all based on the actions of a minority of lunatics and uneducated "so-called" Christians. Yes, a lot of people claim and think they are, and believe ridiculous things, cause more problems in the world and do get in the way of medicine and science and are basically just crappy people. However, there are those that take things for what they are, are intelligent, good people, who don't impose their beliefs on the world, politics or other people. The so-called Christians that believe in ghosts floating around (being watched by a guardian angel or dead relative), those that think when a child dies, they float up to heaven and become "angels" and think the end of the world is coming in our lifetime or that of their children's generation, are really just the ignorant ones that don't understand or lead the lives they claim they are leading. People like that are easily duped.

A normal, sane and intelligent Christian does ask questions, accepts facts and they simply have faith in a higher power and the association with Jesus Christ. The man did exist, for example, but one could easily debate if he was the son of God. The only difference between a normal, everyday decent person and one that's a Christian (a true Christian), is their belief in a higher power.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Comments • End times

soundoff (351 Responses)
  1. Eric G

    Noise..........All noise......

    The bible is truth.
    Jesus died for your sins.
    God does not want you to be gay.
    Non believers are going to hell.
    Creation theory is correct.
    Blah blah blah............

    This is all pointless garbage. This is all believers trying to get rational, logical people to swing at a pitch in the dirt.

    Maybe I have had too much coffee today, but enough already.

    I will say it one more time so the people sitting in the back can hear........

    Please provide verifiable evidence that your god exists. You must start there. Without this evidence, anything else you claim about your god is irrelevant. If you cannot prove your god exists, nothing you claim about your god matters. Without proof of your gods existence, the bible is irrelevant.

    Please provide the evidence for verification. That is all you have to do. Once you have established that your god exists, then you can make claims about who your god hates.

    May 26, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Dude! That comment was why I love you!

      Cheers!

      May 26, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Hey Eric G,
      I hope you are well, my friend. Look, earlier this week (or late last) Bobinator stated "only atheists truly understand faith." My challenge to that is IF that were true you would understand the faith requires no evidence! Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Tthat is the biblical definition of faith! That is the very definition of faith. At the same time I believe creation is the full evidence that God is. If, as Bobinator boldly stated, "atheists are the only ones who understand faith" is true, then why are folk still asking for evidence?

      May 26, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
    • Hitch

      ‘ faith requires no evidence!’

      And what is honorable, or moral about that? What is commendable about those who follow others in sake of evidence? Following others who insist that evidence is only not required, but faith is admired shows how logically fallacious the premise is. Beliefs are only tenable based on evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Imagine I told you that I was god incarnate. Or that your wife was cheating on you. Would you believe either on face value? I highly doubt it, as you’d likely request evidence for those claims. Now, claim that the book you keep by your bed is written by god & that he demands certain things of you, or he’ll punish you eternally, than that you (somehow?) do accept. Fancy that logic.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Steve: Always nice to hear from you. I hope you and yours are well.

      I am fine with "Faith without evidence" if no claims of fact are made. As an example, someone makes a claim that a god loves us all and just wants (some would say demands because of threats of penalty) us to believe in it. Without evidence, this claim is as valid as unicorns only like pepperoni on their pizza.

      Faith is not a path to truth because faith is not benign. To claim knowledge, and to use that claimed knowledge to control others without evidence is at best, dishonest, and at worst, dangerous.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
    • Eric G

      "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

      I am gonna steal that line. Your check is in the mail.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Hitch

      ‘ faith requires no evidence!’

      And what is honorable, or moral about that? What is commendable about those who follow others in sake of evidence? Following others who insist that evidence is only not required, but faith is admired shows how logically fallacious the premise is. Beliefs are only tenable based on evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Imagine I told you that I was god incarnate. Or that your wife was cheating on you. Would you believe either on face value? I highly doubt it, as you’d likely request evidence for those claims. Now, claim that the book you keep by your bed is written by god & that he demands certain things of you, or he’ll punish you eternally, than that you (somehow?) do accept. Fancy that logic.
      -----–
      1. Easy to debunk you are God. No need for evidence!
      2. My wife WILL NOT cheat nor will I
      3. Logic=humanity's frail attempts to disprove God!
      4. God has already proven how commendable faith in Him is.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > I hope you are well, my friend. Look, earlier this week (or late last) Bobinator stated "only atheists truly understand faith." My challenge to that is IF that were true you would understand the faith requires no evidence!

      We do understand that. You totally missed the point of my statement.

      What's funny is that you've done an about face turn from when we talked previously. I had lumped faith together by looking at the common quality they all shared, that is to say, that they lack evidence. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

      Given that you now agree that faith does not require evidence, perhaps you can answer this question, although I figure you'll try and dodge it like you usually do.

      Given that faith requires no evidence, then by definition, all religions that worship non-existent Gods can also have faith, for non-existent Gods cannot have proof of their existence.

      So, faith, as you define it, allows you to hold a position that might be incorrect.

      Given that faith can be incorrect, how can you rely upon it? Or better yet, how do you verify faith?

      May 26, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Steve:
      "1. Easy to debunk you are God. No need for evidence!
      2. My wife WILL NOT cheat nor will I
      3. Logic=humanity's frail attempts to disprove God!
      4. God has already proven how commendable faith in Him is"

      1. Please debunk his claim that he is god.
      2. Technically, that is speculation, but I am happy for you both!
      3. Logic works just fine without your god. Can you give an example?
      4. I would say that your god has "proven" nothing to you. You have simply accepted without proof, per your definition of faith.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Eric G

      @Steve:
      "1. Easy to debunk you are God. No need for evidence!
      2. My wife WILL NOT cheat nor will I
      3. Logic=humanity's frail attempts to disprove God!
      4. God has already proven how commendable faith in Him is"

      1. Please debunk his claim that he is god.
      2. Technically, that is speculation, but I am happy for you both!
      3. Logic works just fine without your god. Can you give an example?
      4. I would say that your god has "proven" nothing to you. You have simply accepted without proof, per your definition of faith.
      ------
      1. Simple, just ask him if he keeps his word. if the answer is yes, why is he in the form of a man. Eric G, that happened once and one time only. Look at it this way. Hitch the atheist claims to be god, whom he does not believe to exist. Hitch would have issues.
      2. Thank you
      3. Nothing wrong with logic until it is use as a tool to eliminate God from the picture. That is my reference to logic. When used to attempt to eliminate God from the picture, it becomes nothing! Understand the Spiritual is greater than the natural. The use of the natural to dismiss the spiritual is a frail human attempt.
      4. What you don't realize is God responds to faith, not logic. One will NEVER experience him without faith. Understand that faith in God is but the first step in a life long journey.

      you said: I would say that your god has "proven" nothing to you. You have simply accepted without proof, per your definition of faith.

      Is that your experience or lack of experience with God? It certainly is not mine!

      May 26, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      @Bobinator

      What's funny is that you've done an about face turn from when we talked previously. I had lumped faith together by looking at the common quality they all shared, that is to say, that they lack evidence. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.
      Given that you now agree that faith does not require evidence, perhaps you can answer this question, although I figure you'll try and dodge it like you usually do.
      Given that faith requires no evidence, then by definition, all religions that worship non-existent Gods can also have faith, for non-existent Gods cannot have proof of their existence.
      So, faith, as you define it, allows you to hold a position that might be incorrect.
      Given that faith can be incorrect, how can you rely upon it? Or better yet, how do you verify faith?
      --------
      Faulty logic! You are assuming all faith has the same target and is the same. It is not! Just because one faith is incorrect does not mean Christianity is incorrect. All faith is not the same. Wiccans worship Gaia in faith, satanists worship the devil in faith, muslims Allah, some have sacificed children and virgins in the faith that their gods will be pleased and spare them. NONE of this has anything to do with the worship of to God of the bible. The common tread is faith, after than there is absolutely NOTHING in common. So much for me dodging huh?

      May 26, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "nothing you claim about your god matters."

      Correction, it won't matter to you.

      May 26, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Hitch

      steve,

      2. She’s cheating on you, with tons of other men. Would you believe that statement, on mere faith, or do you require evidence for it? That is what I was getting at…
      3. Clearly I am speaking to a person who doesn’t comprehend concepts in logic like First Principles.
      4. Really? Did he prove how commendable it is to be use faith alone for those who died in the tornado?

      May 26, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Steve: You are a good sport, my friend!

      Sorry, but I have to go with Bobinator on this one.
      You said: "Faulty logic! You are assuming all faith has the same target and is the same. It is not! Just because one faith is incorrect does not mean Christianity is incorrect. All faith is not the same."

      In previous posts, you said that "faith does not require evidence". If there is no evidence to validate any faith, all faith is equal. This is what I was talking about with arrogant claims of knowledge.

      So, after further review, the play stands as called on the field. First and Ten Bobinator. Steve (the real one) is charged one time-out.

      May 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • Hitch

      steve,

      1.It’s called a thought experiment, buddy. My hypothetical question is just as valid if it came from some mouth breather like Camping as opposed to me. Way to dodge it entirely.
      2.Same as above, all dodge on your part.
      3.Oh forget it, I cannot possibly have a meaningful dialog with a person who admires faith & ignores logic.

      May 26, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Hitch

      steve,

      1.It’s called a thought experiment, buddy. My hypothetical question is just as valid if it came from some mouth breather like Camping as opposed to me. Way to dodge it entirely.
      2.Same as above, all dodge on your part.
      3.Oh forget it, I cannot possibly have a meaningful dialog with a person who admires faith & ignores logic.
      -----
      "Oh forget it, I cannot possibly have a meaningful dialog with a person who admires faith & ignores logic"
      You do realize that this is te belief blog, right? There are a ton of us who life lives of faith. As I said earlier, logic is a tool it is when logic is used to attempt to dismiss God it becomes a frail human attempt. So I can endure the name calling and all else yet you cannot endure someone who will stand on faith and not fold up like a moth in a flame? OK!

      May 26, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Eric G
      @Steve: You are a good sport, my friend!
      Sorry, but I have to go with Bobinator on this one.
      You said: "Faulty logic! You are assuming all faith has the same target and is the same. It is not! Just because one faith is incorrect does not mean Christianity is incorrect. All faith is not the same."
      In previous posts, you said that "faith does not require evidence". If there is no evidence to validate any faith, all faith is equal. This is what I was talking about with arrogant claims of knowledge.
      So, after further review, the play stands as called on the field. First and Ten Bobinator. Steve (the real one) is charged one time-out.
      ---------
      Thanks Eric G
      No surprise that you disagree with me. I will also submit to you again, all faith and all targets of faith are not the same. Kinda like saying skate boards and cars are the same because they both have wheels. I will admit you all challenge me, which is very good for me! It causes growth my my faith!

      May 26, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Steve: I can take a car and compare it to a skateboard. If your faith requires no evidence, but you are sure all other faiths are wrong but can't prove it, is that not just a little arrogant?

      May 26, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • Prove there is a God

      *wave* see me? I am proof, living proof that there is a God.

      According to doctors my grand-mother was not to have a live birth.

      My mom was born alive.

      After my mother gave birth to a still born child in 74 doctors told my mother that she would not be able to bring another child to term and both live.

      Against all odds we both did, my birth was normal, she carried me to term without any problems at all.

      I have been diagnosed with breast cancer, the doctors were 100% sure it was there and so sever they immediately prepared a helicopter lift from that hospital to one better to suited to help me. I had the symptoms, all evidence to prove it was so. Yet later when checked they could find no cancer.

      That is just the beginning of the many things that has happened, that i have personally seen, or witness that defy logic, science, doctors. I do not need a bible to tell me God is real. That many coincidences can not occur, it defies logic.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      @Steve:
      1. Simple, just ask him if he keeps his word. if the answer is yes, why is he in the form of a man. Eric G, that happened once and one time only. Look at it this way. Hitch the atheist claims to be god, whom he does not believe to exist. Hitch would have issues.
      2. Thank you
      3. Nothing wrong with logic until it is use as a tool to eliminate God from the picture. That is my reference to logic. When used to attempt to eliminate God from the picture, it becomes nothing! Understand the Spiritual is greater than the natural. The use of the natural to dismiss the spiritual is a frail human attempt.
      4. What you don't realize is God responds to faith, not logic. One will NEVER experience him without faith. Understand that faith in God is but the first step in a life long journey.

      -------------–

      1. One could argue that god didn't keep his word, unless one accepts that the 'second coming' happened around 70C.E. Mark 13:30
      3. Does logic also fail when used to point to a lack of evidence for Vishnu? Or Zeus? Or mermaids? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
      4. You still didn't offer any proof. What evidence, other than your own beliefs (which wouldn't really count as evidence) do you have that god response to faith? I had faith. I experienced nothing. I now lack faith and feel that I have now come to see that my new outlook "is but the first step in a life long journey."

      May 26, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Prove there is a God

      @ Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      We have the application of this prophetic sermon. As to the destruction of Jerusalem, expect it to come very shortly. As to the end of the world, do not inquire when it will come, for of that day and that hour knoweth no man. Christ, as God, could not be ignorant of anything; but the Divine wisdom which dwelt in our Savior, communicated

      May 26, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • Lycidas

      You know..there should be awards for creative user names like : Juggling Squirrel-Jesus. I will admit, it made me do a double take.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      @Prove there is a God

      All that proves is that doctors are very much fallible and, as any decent scientist knows, nothing should be stated with absolute certainty.

      That many 'coincidences' can and certainly do happen. Logic is in no way defied. We are pattern seeking animals. That we have such a remarkable ability to recognize patterns has allowed our species to make such tremendous gains. The side effect of this powerful mental ability is that often one sees patterns where they do not exist.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      @Prove there is a God

      Mark 13:30 clearly states that Jesus' prophecies would occur before his generation had passed. Unless one accepts the first century fall of Jerusalem as proof of this, god either 1) did not keep his word 2) The game of telephone that lead to the creation of the gospels lost something in the mix, or 3) god fulfilled his prophecy some two millenia ago.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > Faulty logic! You are assuming all faith has the same target and is the same. It is not!
      > My challenge to that is IF that were true you would understand the faith requires no evidence!

      So I suppose faith has a common attribute while at the same time not having a common attribute. How silly of me.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Outside the box

      I pointed this out the other day and no one commented. I was sitting on a couch with a couple of friends watching t.v. A large bottle of laundry soap was on a shelf above the washer, the washer nor dryer was on. The back wall was adjacent to other rooms of the house. Everyone in the house sat on the couch.

      Then all the sudden this bottle of laundry soap flew off the shelf. If it fell it would of hit the washer, it did not. It landed 3 feet away on the floor.

      As for the soap bottle, laundry soap was always placed on that shelf, that is the one and only occurrence of it taking place, or even falling. I can not find a scientifically reason why it did that. Nor in the years since have I had it happen.

      Explain that.

      Many people have witnessed such occurrences, I have personally known at least eleven people who have seen such things, several believed it was impossible before it's occurrence.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Hitch

      Steve,

      I thought this blog was open to all, believers and non-believers alike, who’re are open to holding straight forward candid dialog. Regrettably, I found myself in a situation where the correspondent is playing games, not answering directly & dodging questions.

      ‘when logic is used to attempt to dismiss God it becomes a frail human attempt.’

      Um, why? Your comment itself lacks logic. Such a fiat that logic can be used in all instances but not to show X is itself nonexistence is laughable. Your position of contempt for logic & reason is repugnant.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      @outside the box

      Lots of people claimed they saw mermaids in the past. Many people swore to their existence. Doesn't make them real. Ditto aliens, ghosts, and big foot.

      Just because YOU can't explain it, doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly valid explanation.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Juggling Squirrel-Jesus
      1. One could argue that god didn't keep his word, unless one accepts that the 'second coming' happened around 70C.E. Mark 13:30
      3. Does logic also fail when used to point to a lack of evidence for Vishnu? Or Zeus? Or mermaids? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
      4. You still didn't offer any proof. What evidence, other than your own beliefs (which wouldn't really count as evidence) do you have that god response to faith? I had faith. I experienced nothing. I now lack faith and feel that I have now come to see that my new outlook "is but the first step in a life long journey."
      -----–
      1.One could argue that . Of course on would be argueing incorrectly! The key is to read MARK 13 in context! There are 2 questions being asked (verse 4) the key is to know which question is being answered and when.
      3. Only if Zeus, mermaids and vishu are your thing. Are they? Certainly not mine! BTW I love spaghetti I am just trying to cut back on the starches!
      4. You don't have to count my faith or beliefs as evidence. You don't have to. THAT is what matters! Sorry you hever experienced God in your life, I really am. I have, now do you have proof I didn't?

      May 26, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Outsidethebox: Very simple. I can't explain it. For the following reasons.

      I cannot examine the location.
      I can only go by your description.
      I don't know what scientific methods you used to recreate the settings to test for similar results.
      I don't know what other variables you did not include in your description.
      You do not know if it "flew" becuase you did not see it happen. You only saw the results.

      What is the purpose of your post? Do you have a hypothesis explaining the cause? Are you claiming that becuase you have found no scientific explanation, that one does not exist?

      Confused.........

      May 26, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Bubbles

      @Prove there is a God

      "According to doctors my grand-mother was not to have a live birth.

      My mom was born alive.

      After my mother gave birth to a still born child in 74 doctors told my mother that she would not be able to bring another child to term and both live.

      Against all odds we both did, my birth was normal, she carried me to term without any problems at all.

      I have been diagnosed with breast cancer, the doctors were 100% sure it was there and so sever they immediately prepared a helicopter lift from that hospital to one better to suited to help me. I had the symptoms, all evidence to prove it was so. Yet later when checked they could find no cancer.

      That is just the beginning of the many things that has happened, that i have personally seen, or witness that defy logic, science, doctors. I do not need a bible to tell me God is real. That many coincidences can not occur, it defies logic."

      Hate to burst your bubble there but I have a similar story with both my brother and my survival are now in the medical books but guess what it's not a miracle. It's call survival and nature. The other thing to keep in mind is back then science wasn't as developed as it is now so our stories came off as miracles instead of issue in chemistry that we can now fix before hand. Nothing special going on, just nature and medical ignorance of that time.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • God is not a Genie

      Juggling Squirrel-Jesus,

      See
      .................

      The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD

      May 26, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Hitch: 3 points for "fiat". 3 more for "repugnant". Wishing your namesake good health.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • God is not a Genie

      Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      Mark 13:30 clearly states that Jesus' prophecies would occur before his generation had passed. Unless one accepts the first century fall of Jerusalem as proof of this, god either 1) did not keep his word 2) The game of telephone that lead to the creation of the gospels lost something in the mix, or 3) god fulfilled his prophecy some two millenia ago.

      The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD

      May 26, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • Hitch

      Steve,

      ‘You don't have to count my faith or beliefs as evidence. You don't have to. THAT is what matters! Sorry you hever experienced God in your life, I really am. I have, now do you have proof I didn't?’

      Wow. You’ve gone from ‘evidence doesn’t matter, only faith’ to ‘you don’t have to count my faith as evidence’. Folks, I think when it’s apparent we have a person who ignores logical contradictions, poses fallacious reasoning & argues from no evidence, asserts evidence doesn’t matter & then doubles down that faith too doesn’t matter, well, there is nothing really left to say.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • Outside the box

      Eric G
      @Outsidethebox: Very simple. I can't explain it. For the following reasons.
      I cannot examine the location.
      I can only go by your description.
      I don't know what scientific methods you used to recreate the settings to test for similar results.
      I don't know what other variables you did not include in your description.
      You do not know if it "flew" becuase you did not see it happen. You only saw the results.
      What is the purpose of your post? Do you have a hypothesis explaining the cause? Are you claiming that becuase you have found no scientific explanation, that one does not exist?
      Confused.........

      1 No can I no longer live in San Marcos.

      2 As for you not seeing it happen, most of what we derive as fact is not seen today, we rely on people to report it. For me it is a fact, I saw it, had witnesses that saw it.

      3 and 4 As for recreation. The bottle was place back where it was, I still use that practice today. I buy the large liquid containers that have a spout. Nothing else had changed.

      5 I did see it actually fly so did everyone else, the laundry closet was in the living room 5 feet from the couch so yes It was seen by all

      So hypothetically speaking how would science explain it?

      May 26, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Outsidethebox: Again, no scientific explanation available becuase of lack of controlled, independent testing enviornment and lack of reliable data.

      I do have two questions.

      1. Why have you not answered my question as to any hypothesis you have to explain it?
      2. Why were you and your friends sitting on your couch staring at your closet?

      May 26, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Hitch
      I thought this blog was open to all, believers and non-believers alike, who’re are open to holding straight forward candid dialog. Regrettably, I found myself in a situation where the correspondent is playing games, not answering directly & dodging questions.
      Um, why? Your comment itself lacks logic. Such a fiat that logic can be used in all instances but not to show X is itself nonexistence is laughable. Your position of contempt for logic & reason is repugnant.
      ----------–
      1. You are most welcome to this blog just like I am. Yet YOU stated you cannot have conversation with those who admire faith. YOUR words (or very close to). I merely pointed out that on the BELIEF BLOG, many of us not only admire faith but try to live it out everyday. Some days are less successful than others BUT we try.
      2. I am playing no games here. I take my faith seriously and it is NOT a game. You just don't like the answers.

      3. You said: Your position of contempt for logic & reason is repugnant. Sorry you feel that way but it is not surprise. It is what it is. I will continue to live out my faith. Simply live YOUR life! You don't want to engage with Christians, while on the BELIEF BLOG?

      May 26, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Hitch
      Steve,
      ‘You don't have to count my faith or beliefs as evidence. You don't have to. THAT is what matters! Sorry you hever experienced God in your life, I really am. I have, now do you have proof I didn't?’
      Wow. You’ve gone from ‘evidence doesn’t matter, only faith’ to ‘you don’t have to count my faith as evidence’. Folks, I think when it’s apparent we have a person who ignores logical contradictions, poses fallacious reasoning & argues from no evidence, asserts evidence doesn’t matter & then doubles down that faith too doesn’t matter, well, there is nothing really left to say.
      --------
      Way to twist my words. Let me make it clearer for you.

      Does MY faith provide evidence to you that God is real? I will assume it does not (based upon your words).
      That is my point. My faith and the faith of others believers to you provides NO evidence of God. If it did , you would not still be asking for evidence. That is the point I am making! So why did i say "you don't have to count my faith as evidence"? Because you won't anyway!
      Your double down incorrect! My faith matters just not to you and those who think like you! Hopefully I made my stance a bit clearer.

      May 26, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • Fordham Jock

      @Prove there is a God

      Actually all that "proves" is that you and your family might wish to find some different, (better), physicians.

      The occurrence of the improbable, or unexpected only indicates that some events, which may be thought to be out on either end of the Bell curve of probabilities occasionally occur. I don't think one can logically draw any other conclusion from the events you mention.

      May 26, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • Hitch

      Box,

      2.Even without directly seeing something it always helps to have other empirical, physically testable evidence which is consistent to show that it did occur. In this case all we have is your word, mere hearsay. You may have saw something, but what you saw might be interpreted differently from those who also claimed to have witnessed it. As your descriptions diverge any possible claims for truth are lost as again all we have is your mere word and nothing empirically testable.
      3.He meant is your occurrence repeatable under scientific conditions. What is the suspected cause to the effect? At this point all you have is conjecture as you lack the data to support any conclusion. Science would ask if it’s something that can be repeated so it can be tested again, again & again to determine the root cause & to ensure the witnesses aren’t merely making it up. As you may know, a sample size occurrence of 1 is worthless as it cannot rule out outliers, massive bias, or other possible causes. Science would likely dismiss your case as a result of lacking empirical testable data, so it has nothing to work with to determine what actually occurred.

      May 27, 2011 at 10:42 am |
  2. Steve

    To those that can only quote scripture to make their point the world has had enough dark shinning on this subject for too long.

    For everyone, please read:

    The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by D.M. Murdock (Acharya S), or

    The Christian Delusion by John W Loftus, or

    Biblical Nonsense by Dr Jason Long, or

    Christ in Egypt by D.M. Murdock (Acharya S)

    A careful reading of the above should be a great start to making us all less vulnerable to religious con artists and the plain delusional.

    May 26, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
  3. Fidei Conticula Crux

    Science neither proves nor disproves the exits of God. Unlike the objects of science, we cannot put God under a microscope or create a better computer program to understand him. God is a person, not an object. We can know how a clock works by taking it apart and analyzing it, but to really know a person we need a relationship. And relationships require trust—trust in the other. God asks us to trust in his goodness and his love and to keep our eyes open to seeing his goodness win through and over evil. Jesus promises his followers that he will come again one day (John 14:3). God will rid the world of evil and give new life to all those who have chosen to follow Jesus (2 Peter 3:9). Believing in God is to trust in him.

    May 26, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • Stevie7

      And what of those who have relationships and trust in gods other than your own? What would you say to them? Just curious.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation

      To posit the anthropomorphic projection of "personhood" onto a deity, without ANY accompanying supporting evidence or analysis, is preposterous.

      The moon is made of green cheese.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
    • Fidei Conticula Crux

      Stevie7,

      Most likely, they will tell me about their beliefs and I would tell them about mine. We can accept or reject each others beliefs without disrepecting each other. Furthermore, we could focus on what our beliefs have in common, instead of what they don't have in common. In the end... we are all human and need to learn how to get along with each other.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • Luke

      God is a person? That doesn't make sense. Not only does it reduce the deity from the supernature to an ordinary human; it makes the god a thing – just the opposte of what you protist. FAIL.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • Fidei Conticula Crux

      Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation and Luke,

      Lucky for us, God doesn’t define a person like you do. Remember… God made us in his own image.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
    • Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation

      Sorry. I forgot to add that one would have to also define exactly what is meant by using the term "person" .

      May 26, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
    • Madtown

      "God is a person, not an object..."
      -----–

      I don't think humankind has evolved or advanced enough to have any intellectual understanding of what God "is". It's an interesting topic for discussion, but in the end there are no answers. Anyone suggesting differently needs a dose of humility.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
    • Luke

      Fidei Conticula Crux

      Oh, interesting. Well since the first humans were black and closer to 4 feet in stature, why are all images of god a white tall guy? You fail.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "why are all images of god a white tall guy?"

      Because most artwork you are thinking of came from Europe.

      Plz note that Jewish culture did not show God at all in any form.

      May 26, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation

      Good point. Thanks for raising that question. How exactly, in precise terms, and where, does God "define" what a "person" is, and what does that term mean to you, exactly ?

      May 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
  4. Deist

    The Boy Who Cried Wolf

    There was a Shepherd Boy who tended his sheep at the foot of a mountain near a dark forest. It was lonely for him, so he devised a plan to get a little company. He rushed down towards the village calling out "Wolf, Wolf," and the villagers came out to meet him. This pleased the boy so much that a few days after he tried the same trick, and again the villagers came to his help. Shortly after this a Wolf actually did come out from the forest. The boy cried out "Wolf, Wolf," still louder than before. But this time the villagers, who had been fooled twice before, thought the boy was again lying, and nobody came to his aid. So the Wolf made a good meal off the boy's flock.

    The tale concerns a shepherd boy who tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. He repeats this so many times that when the sheep are actually confronted by a wolf, the villagers do not believe his cries for help and the flock is destroyed. The moral at the end is that 'the story shows that this is how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.

    May 26, 2011 at 11:42 am |
    • Chicken Little

      The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the Afterward :

      And of course, there was one villager who never bought the cr-p in the first place. And she just sat and chuckled, having gotten her dinner cooked, while the others were out having a "who ha" over absolutely nothing.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
  5. Luke

    In replying to the article, must take on Bob. I'll will it apart one by one.

    Can't see gravity either, but you would say that we can measure it by its effect.
    This logic doesn't hold up under scrutiny. We can see the impact of gravity, hence orbits of planets, attraction between massive objects and the way light curves around massive objects in space. It is viewable, testable, measurable and predictable. Furthermore, if your god is not seen, how do we measure this god's effects? We tried this many times in fact. One example is the testing of prayer on sick patients in hospitals. After numerous double blind studies, patients that were prayed for did not live longer than those that were ignored. Your logic fails.

    After all it is scientific truth that for there to be an effect, there must be a cause.
    No, there doesn't. This is a falsehood and merely your convenient conjecture that is not held up by any scientific reseach.

    We can't see God but logic must prevail when we see the effects of everything around us. Creation. It's orderly and incredible.
    False. And again, your opinionated conjecture. Furthermore, the creation story is scientifically disproven and a clear example of an illogical falacy. While I could cite many examples, the creation story says that light and life were on earth before stars were created. This is just plain false when we examine the nature order of things. Wrong again.

    Yet, you would probably say it came about by mere chance or accident.
    All current scienetific models indicate that the universe does exist in its present form due to a set of conditions, not chance and accident. People like you say that to make yourselves feel better. No working reputable astrophyscists says the words chance and accident. I suggest you read the works of Neil de Grasse Tyson and get back to me.

    If this is true, why can't we with our intelligence duplicate something that came about by accident?
    We can. We do it all the time. Most great inventions were accidential in nature. Take Penicillin for example.

    Why can't we create something from nothing?
    We cannot, but electons routinely spring in and out of existance. It's actually quite commonplace. Maybe one day in the future we can, however.

    Why can't we create life from nothing? Wow, which takes more 'blind faith'?
    Nowhere in the biological records do we say that life came from nothing. You say that, again, to make yourself feel better. No scientist says that. And what makes you think life is so important in the grand scheme of things?

    Believing something happened by chance just so perfectly to result in this universe – something we cannot duplicate, or admitting that there is someone a lot smarter than mankind that has done this?
    No one says the universe happened by chance. You keep saying that. I suggest you read up. Also, the universe is not perfect. It is actually in disarray with things constants trying to kill life. Comets, astroids, viruses, bacteria, solar wind, supernovas, black holes, our galaxy being on a direct crash course with the Andromeda galaxy. Additionally, our sun will die out in roughly 3B years when it starts fusing iron atoms. This solar system will be gone with a wimper. And in the distant future, the temperature of the universe will fall to absolute zero and vanish out of existance. This is scientific fact. You fail again.

    May 26, 2011 at 11:32 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Luke

      I really like reading your replies. Well said.

      Cheers!

      May 26, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • Stevie7

      I second that – great reply.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Luke

      Well said.

      Peace...

      May 26, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
    • Theories are not scientific fact.

      @Luke

      If you are unwilling to accept God without scientifically fact then your scientific theories are invalid by the same logic. If it has not been proven, it is false.

      Also…

      *We tried this many times in fact. One example is the testing of prayer on sick patients in hospitals. After numerous double blind studies, patients that were prayed for did not live longer than those that were ignored. Your logic fails.*
      Actually you are wrong, you are thinking of a genie. A genie grants wishes, God is considered a king, he rules and decided, His creations just ask that he will help it doesn’t mean he is subject to our wishes, we are subject to his. Thus your logic fails.
      *After all it is scientific truth that for there to be an effect, there must be a cause.
      No, there doesn't. This is a falsehood and merely your convenient conjecture that is not held up by any scientific research.*
      See Newton’s Laws of physics
      • An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
      • An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
      • To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.
      I have yet to obtain any knowledge this law has been disproven, it would have made Front Page news would it not?

      *We can't see God but logic must prevail when we see the effects of everything around us. Creation. It's orderly and incredible.*
      Not false,
      The laws of nature that stands on earth also apply anywhere in the universe, also the speed of light, and many others.

      *Furthermore, the creation story is scientifically disproven and a clear example of an illogical falacy. *
      Actually this is theoretical it has yet to be proven or disproven by science.

      *While I could cite many examples, the creation story says that light and life were on earth before stars were created. This is just plain false when we examine the nature order of things. Wrong again.*
      So Scientist can 100% with actual evidence tell us it is so? Then by your own admissions your statement is false.
      *Yet, you would probably say it came about by mere chance or accident.
      All current scienetific models indicate that the universe does exist in its present form due to a set of conditions, not chance and accident.*
      This debate using your own scientific reasoning is a pointless to debate, no one knows, just theories, there is no actual evidence that proves or disproves the creation of the universe.

      *If this is true, why can't we with our intelligence duplicate something that came about by accident?*
      When humans can create life from inanment objects, get back to me.

      *Most great inventions were accidential in nature. Take Penicillin for example.* Chocolate chip cookies were an accident too.
      Though these fail as valid examples because they did not come together without external human influence, human influence would support a creation’s influence by action or inaction. If you could provide a story where a tornado went into a old plane field and the winds reconstructed the plane, this is where most arguments fail to realize the concept is to show a complex puzzle of pieces come together and function without a human interceding.
      *Why can't we create something from nothing?
      *We cannot, but electons routinely spring in and out of existance. It's actually quite commonplace. Maybe one day in the future we can, however.*
      Actually I would like to see this theory. Link it.

      *Why can't we create life from nothing? Wow, which takes more 'blind faith'?
      Nowhere in the biological records do we say that life came from nothing. You say that, again, to make yourself feel better. No scientist says that. And what makes you think life is so important in the grand scheme of things?*
      I would presume this is based on the big bang theory, since at such high temperatures required in the explosive event organic life would have a hard time surviving it, it would stand to reason it’s creation took place after it happened.*
      Believing something happened by chance just so perfectly to result in this universe – something we cannot duplicate, or admitting that there is someone a lot smarter than mankind that has done this?
      Some happened just by chance. = Without intelligent influence.
      Example: coincidence

      Honest I grow tiresome of looking up theories, theories are unproven ideas and a lot of facts are under dispute by scientist.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Theories are not scientific fact: "Honest I grow tiresome of looking up theories, theories are unproven ideas and a lot of facts are under dispute by scientist."

      I think you are talking about a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an unproven idea based upon evidence. A "theory" is an explanation based on verified, testable evidence.

      Please stop doing your religious "two-step" and provide any evidence that your god exists for verification. That is all we ask.

      Also, stop being a condecending pr1ck. We are just trying to have a discussion.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      To add to Eric G's comments, gravity and electromagnetism are theories. Yet, because of the theory of gravity I can be fairly confident that my keyboard isn't about to go floating off. Because of the theory of electromagnetism, I'm able to use this computer to send information out at the speed of light and have you view that information on your computer. There is no fact of gravity. There is no fact of quantum mechanics. There is no fact of electromagnetism. Yet these scientific principles are all valid as based upon verifiable, repeatable actions.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation

      Hi Luke. Loved you post. I will address only the last paragraph.
      His objection to the "singularly' seemingly unique nature of this universe is not supported by objective evidence. Just because this universe is the only one we are able to detect, at this time, does not mean it is the only one which exists, or that it is the only one which ever came into existence. There could be literally countless others, both now and in OUR past, (as opposed to THE past), (and for that matter in our/the future), which may or may not be compatible to detection by our brains, and machines/instruments, or to our laws of physics. For example, there may be a continuous flow, in and out of virtual existence, of countless universes, some/many of which would intantaneously "crash", secondary to internal laws which would be incompatible with itself, and would very quickly "blink out" of existence. The fact that ours didn't, (or hasn't so far), may mean that it is the one in a se-xtillion which happened to be internally compatible. In a time free dimension, (and there may or may not be time/space in other universes), the numbers of other universes with other properties could be infinite.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Luke

      Theories are not scientific fact:

      You happen to be correct. Scientific theories are not facts. They are what they say they are: theories. But where you error is to make the leap from stating that theories are not facts to conjuring that they are therefore false. I refuse to engage in debate with a simpleton that does not understand 7th grade science and is dimwitted enough to confuse hypothesis with theory. Your argument is invalidated. I suggest you go the library.

      May 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • Luke

      Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation

      Thanks! I have actually done a little reading on the theories you speak of, but clearly you have a better understanding that I do. I appreciate the insight and welcome further comments. I'm an economist by day, but science nerd by night.

      May 26, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Luke

      Theories are not scientific fact:

      Oh, some direct questions for you – where did you study your science? Where did you do your PhD. work? What papers have you published? Were they peer reviewed? Can I read them? Until you say yes to all of these questions, you do not get to comment on what is and what is not scientific theory.

      May 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • Fordham Jock

      @Theories are not scientific fact.

      I disagree with a lot of that but certainly :
      "The laws of nature that stands on earth also apply anywhere in the universe, also the speed of light, and many others." is not considered as being supported by evidence. (BTW "stand" should be plural in that sentence.)

      The only thing most physicists would be wiling to say is they( our laws of nature) appear to be applicable in this "region" of this universe. The most obvious example would be the known phenomenon of black holes, which no one disputes as being real. The worm hole hypothesis, etc etc, also may contain examples where our local laws break down.
      I also personally, fundamentally disagree with your name. Read the few simple steps of the scientific method. The word "fact" does not appear there at all. This is not a well accepted opinion, but it is mine. The discussion of what a "fact" may or may not be is far from resolved. And then there is the problem of whether we, as observers, and thus participants, in a supposedly objective process, can ever be said to be "objective" since we participate in the observation.

      May 26, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Facts are discreet pieces of data. Theories are models that encompass facts.

      May 26, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
  6. Fidei Coticula Crux

    CNN sure is milking this for all it is worth.

    May 26, 2011 at 11:00 am |
  7. Steve

    About Josh McDowell's "evidence':

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

    May 26, 2011 at 10:41 am |
  8. John Richardson

    Ever notice that when CNN highlights a few posts, they seldom choose any of the best ones? No wonder their news sucks. Their copy editors probably kill all the good reporting till all the good reporters leave.

    May 26, 2011 at 10:06 am |
  9. justice

    Regular Christians are almost just as nutty as this guy. He just puts a date on it. If you think a zombie Jesus will return to earth and magically rescue everyone who was born into the right religion, you are messed in the head.

    May 26, 2011 at 9:12 am |
    • Steve (the real one)

      The problem with your post is you believe we are born into Christianity. Not quite. We are born-again into it! And yes, Jesus will come back! Are you ready?

      May 26, 2011 at 10:20 am |
    • Joe R.

      I'm a Christian that believes that Jesus will one day return to earth, however, it cannot be said that I am "messed in the head". I know the difference between right and wrong. I am capable of rational thought, reason, and logic. I can discern the consequences of choices and actions. I try to help those in need. I have real relationships with people. I also have an engineering degree and above average intelligence (I'm not a genius, but all my life I've been one of the "smart kids"). While my analytical side is certainly dominant, I also have a creative side. I enjoy writing on occasion, and I am also a photographer. I also have an appreciation for the beauty in art, and in life. So, by definition, I could not be insane. I also do not believe that Camping was insane, but that he rather distorted the Bible to his own ends, which I do not agree with.

      Growing up in a Christian home, I did indeed become a Christian early in my life. And at the time, I did not knokw all of the history of hte Bible, or how it could be true. I merely accepted in faith that it was. On some level, it made sense to me.

      As I have grown older, I have done more research and reading and thinking on what I believe. Do I have reason, not just faith, but also reason, to think that I what I believe is true. THe conclusion I have come to is that yes, I do have logical, rational reason to believe that my faith is not misguided. And while there are certainly things I do not undertand, I believe that it is because those things are beyond my comprehension. I think there are something that just cannot be truly grasped, so yes, somethings I do still hold on to by faith. But it is a faith back by reason that because the things of the past were true, so shall the things of the future be true.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation

      @Joe R.
      The fact that there are known to be things which we apprehend, and/or consider to be "beyond our comprehension", and to make the leap from there to "fath" is not necessarily your only choice, nor have you logically justified that jump.

      Einstein showed us that our experience of reality, (space/time for example) is not really, necessarily, what "reality" is all about. Quantum Mechanics has shown that what we would expect from our experience of practical day to day macro things is not really what is happening, on a smaller level. There is more and more evidence of other dimensions, other than the four we know about for sure, and we will never apprehend them directly. That fact does not make one jump to a position of "faith".

      "But it is a faith back by reason that because the things of the past were true, so shall the things of the future be true."
      I don't understand that sentence. Could you provide some examples please. Thanks. Great thoughtful post.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:58 am |
    • Madtown

      Steve (the real one)
      The problem with your post is you believe we are born into Christianity. Not quite. We are born-again into it!
      ----–

      So, if you were born and raised in the Middle East, you are certain you would've rejected Islam, and turned toward Christianity?

      May 26, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Madtown

      So, if you were born and raised in the Middle East, you are certain you would've rejected Islam, and turned toward Christianity?
      -------
      Perhaps not right away but I sure God would have reached me. Missionaries my friend, missionaries, or perhaps a vision, or dream! With God anything is possible. I am not about to place limits on God and neither should you!

      May 26, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
    • Hitch

      ‘Perhaps not right away but I sure God would have reached me. ‘

      This I don’t find believable, you’re hedge betting against all those throughout time who’ve not heard of or didn’t convert to Christianity despite missionaries. Regardless of whatever region or religion, the religion one is raised up to believe is the ‘true one’ they as a child will overwhelmingly adopt & continue to rely on throughout their life.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Hitch
      This I don’t find believable, you’re hedge betting against all those throughout time who’ve not heard of or didn’t convert to Christianity despite missionaries. Regardless of whatever region or religion, the religion one is raised up to believe is the ‘true one’ they as a child will overwhelmingly adopt & continue to rely on throughout their life
      --------
      Hitch it is cool that you don't believe it. It was probably a question that should not have even be entertained because I was not born in the Middle East BUT, what how do you explain:
      1. Those born into a "Christian" home but walk away from their faith
      2. Those born in atheistic homes who become Christians
      3. Those born into the home of other religions and yet become Christian.
      Yes, all the above happens.
      Simple for 2 and 3, God somehow reaches them where they are and they believe. The fact is NO one is a Christian because their parents are. Christianity is the choice of individuals! That is the explaination! I was not born a muslim nor was I born a Christian. I became a Christian when I was born again! That is the diference and that is believeable to me!

      May 26, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      From Steve (the Real One):
      Hitch it is cool that you don't believe it. It was probably a question that should not have even be entertained because I was not born in the Middle East BUT, what how do you explain:
      1. Those born into a "Christian" home but walk away from their faith
      2. Those born in atheistic homes who become Christians
      3. Those born into the home of other religions and yet become Christian.
      Yes, all the above happens.
      -----------------

      You forgot some.
      4. Born as Christian, move to atheism.
      5. Born as Christian, become deist, rejecting the bible.
      6. Born as a Christian, move to Islam.

      These do happen too. Did you forget them? By your logic did God turn these people away? Because if you're asserting people move to Christianity by God's actions, then clearly he must push people away from Christianity.

      Personally I chalk it up to different people doing different things.

      PS: You have this bad habit of trying to mould the evidence to fit your idea. That's not how it works dude.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • Hitch

      Steve,

      1. They’re the exception, not the rule. The vast majority born into X religion stick with that religion throughout their entire life. Demographic studies bear this out.
      2. Same as above.
      3. Same as above.

      Somehow? Um, evidence?

      ‘NO one is a Christian because their parents are.’

      This is true, though my comment wasn’t this anyhow. My comment was that those born to parents who follow X religion stay in that religion overwhelmingly, regardless of the religion. e.g, the smart money is your parents were Christians. Children are, from quite a young age, inculcated into thinking ‘their god’ is the one true one, while all others are fake, wrong, etc.

      May 26, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      The Bobinator

      From Steve (the Real One):
      Hitch it is cool that you don't believe it. It was probably a question that should not have even be entertained because I was not born in the Middle East BUT, what how do you explain:
      1. Those born into a "Christian" home but walk away from their faith
      2. Those born in atheistic homes who become Christians
      3. Those born into the home of other religions and yet become Christian.
      Yes, all the above happens.
      -----–

      You forgot some.
      4. Born as Christian, move to atheism.
      5. Born as Christian, become deist, rejecting the bible.
      6. Born as a Christian, move to Islam.

      These do happen too. Did you forget them? By your logic did God turn these people away? Because if you're asserting people move to Christianity by God's actions, then clearly he must push people away from Christianity.

      Personally I chalk it up to different people doing different things.

      PS: You have this bad habit of trying to mould the evidence to fit your idea. That's not how it works dude.
      --------
      Man oh man! I forgot nothing dude! Read point #1! Those born in "Christian" homes who walked away. That one line covers everyone who went from christian homes to some else or even nothing else. Slow down just a hair!

      To answer your question yes God woos us to come to him. Yet he makes no one come nor does He keep them against their will. Just like a ringing door bell, you can either answer it or not and if you don't the person on the othe side of the door will eventually do away, right? The second half of you question will be answered by a resounding NO. He said He would NOT cast out those who come to Him! He does not push any one away! People decide to come to him or not.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > Man oh man! I forgot nothing dude! Read point #1! Those born in "Christian" homes who walked away. That one line covers everyone who went from christian homes to some else or even nothing else. Slow down just a hair!

      Walked away from their faith doesn't cover the points I listed. Atheism is an outright rejection. So is converting to Islam. Although I'll concede that becoming a deist can fit your description.

      And that's the point of the whole thing. If you're logically going to say that God brings people to him by having them accept Christianity, then the opposite, the rejection of Christianity means God would therefore have to push them away. Logic is a pain isn't it?

      > To answer your question yes God woos us to come to him. Yet he makes no one come nor does He keep them against their will. Just like a ringing door bell, you can either answer it or not and if you don't the person on the othe side of the door will eventually do away, right? The second half of you question will be answered by a resounding NO. He said He would NOT cast out those who come to Him! He does not push any one away! People decide to come to him or not.

      So, people have free will yet God draws them. You're full of contradictions today aren't you? And I thought I explained this to you before, did you not understand? An omniscient God that created the universe cannot, by definition allow us to have free will. It's a contradiction. It's like saying God can exist and not exist at the same time.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      The Bobinator
      And I thought I explained this to you before, did you not understand? An omniscient God that created the universe cannot, by definition allow us to have free will. It's a contradiction. It's like saying God can exist and not exist at the same time.
      ----------------
      I thought I explained to you we have free will. You willed not to believe. You made that choice. YOU exercised YOUR free will! not to believe!

      May 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > I thought I explained to you we have free will. You willed not to believe. You made that choice. YOU exercised YOUR free will! not to believe!

      No, you've only asserted that I have free will. You say the bible says so, that's an assertion. Assertations are worthless without evidence to back them up.

      Whereas I have provided you with a logical contradiction. If God creates the universe and God knows what each and every single person will do based on his choices, we do not have free will. Only the illusion of free will.

      Let me state it again, if God knows what we'll choose we are INCAPABLE of changing our lives. Therefore we do not have the free will to change.

      Instead of asserting that I do, how about we talk like adults and you tell me what's faulty about my reasoning or why this does not apply.

      May 27, 2011 at 10:02 am |
  10. Doc Vestibule

    Has anyone else noticed how prevalent the preoccupation with the end of the world has become in America?
    From bible quoting nutbars like Camping to environmental cults spouting warnings of AlGoremageddon to the huge popularity of zombie apocalypse media, people from all walks of life seem to be dedicating more mental run time to contemplating catastrophe than how to make the world a better place.
    Maybe it's the ghost of the Cold War's doctrine of mutually assured destruction haunting this generation – the palpable yet unspoken truth that we are still potentially minutes away from self imposed annihilation.
    Duck and cover, kiddees...

    May 26, 2011 at 8:58 am |
    • Fluffy the Gerbil of Doom

      Agree. It seems also to be a testosterone based paradigm. Who's going to win, who's going to loose, who's right, who's wrong, who's going to heaven, who's going to he-ll ?

      Didn't CNN listen when we asked last weekend to have some other articles posted ?
      (WE ARE SICK OF THIS S–T. Please move on !)

      May 26, 2011 at 11:37 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Doc Vestibule

      Yes, I have noticed. What has really gotten to me (even commented on it) are many of the posts by Christians. They refer to the earth as dying. Some of this is undoubtedly, fundie rhetoric, but I am seeing more of it.

      Cheers!

      May 26, 2011 at 11:41 am |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      At least we get some mindless actions flicks out of it (2012 was worse than mindless, however)

      May 26, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
    • Fluffy the Gerbil of Doom

      OMG It's my squirrel buddy. Another day out for the rodents !

      May 26, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      Almighty, glorious, and fear-inducing Fluffy. My all those who do not tremble in fear of you, oh great harbinger of doom, be smitten where they stand. The wisdom of we rodent deities is not to be questioned!

      May 26, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  11. CW

    @ Wife2AtheistSteve.....I saw your comment from above.

    Oh...also to AtheistSteve as well,

    You know I don't agree with Camping and his false prophesy he has conjured up but the trash you and your spouse believe is pure evil. Its your choice whether to believe that Jesus died for your sins and this is a decision with huge consequences. By the way...their are sick-os everywhere...people that profess to be christians, atheist(yes I know its hard to believe), hindu's, buddhist,...etc. The mother that did this to her children should and will be punished but for you to call out christian beliefs as wrong...I assert that I KNOW I'M ON THE RIGHT SIDE. You can choose to not believe but one day you will wish you had......believe it.

    May 26, 2011 at 8:49 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Camping is clearly in a league of his own, and most Christians I know do not believe his predictions. Most believe in an end of the world scenario though. Many of them think it's a long way off yet. Some of them believe that it could happen any day. A few tell me that it's metaphorical.

      With so many different takes on just this one scenario, how is anyone to be sure that what they believe is the one right, true thing? And that's just taking Christianity into account.

      When you start looking at other religions it gets even more complicated.

      What is boils down to is you believe what you believe, for reasons that are all your own. Whether you were raised in your faith or converted later in life, whether you believe due to some spiritual epiphany or experience or logically explained historical information...it is personal and it does not translate to the next person. They have their own experiences and epiphanies and logical data sets.

      May 26, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • Eric G

      Great post! Arrogance supported by unsubstantiated claims, smothered in denial of verifiable evidence to the contrary. Served with a side order of threats!

      Again, I ask you CW.....

      Please provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • Stevie7

      @CW "You can choose to not believe but one day you will wish you had......believe it."

      ---------

      How is this not an evil position? Believe in me or suffer for all eternity? Sounds more like a narcissistic abusive parent than a deity who, according to the gospel of John, is love. Unconditional love? Hardly. A god who would sit by and watch the likes of Ghandi burn for all eternity is not a god of unconditional love.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Wife2AtheistSteve

      Pure evil?? We believe in proof...I'm not certain how that equates to pure evil...please explain??

      "You can choose to not believe but one day you will wish you had......believe it."

      and there Christians go with their threats again. I'm not certain what part of the fact that without solid proof you can't make me believe, is not understood. Until you provide physical proof of your god and of heaven/hell, your claim has no standing. We're not out there telling you you will endure endless suffering for not believing in scientific proof...we don't make claims like that. The wonderful thing about being an Atheist is that I have no worry or concern about where my body will be when I pass, I no longer worry about my Mom being in heaven or hell or my daughter being in either place or any of my other deceased relatives. I am burden free in those senses. I understand that this is a wonderful cycle (I am born, I live, I die...end of story). I don't need a security blanket to get me through life...I need exactly what I have-people I love and who love me back, good morals and an open mind. We're not out there committing crimes or being bad people...we live wonderful fulfilling lives and are content with what we have and will have in this world. We live for today and don't worry about what will happen in the end b/c like you, there is no definite answer for that and until there is I can only guess that I will be returned to the earth from which each of us has evolved from. Now tell me again, where I am going...oh that is right, you don't know!!!

      In the end, we are not the ones making claims without evidence...you are the one making those claims, so please prove it!

      May 26, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
    • Madtown

      "...I assert that I KNOW I'M ON THE RIGHT SIDE"
      -------

      Based on what? Your feelings?

      May 26, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
    • ScottK

      You see, CW makes those threats as do all Christians, because to do otherwise would be to admit they are living a lie, and thats the last thing anyone wants to do. It's like spending your life protecting a big pile of gold, defending it with all your might only to find out it's just a mountain of gold spray painted dung.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
    • Artist

      myweightinwords

      Camping is clearly in a league of his own, and most Christians I know do not believe his predictions. >>>Most believe in an end of the world scenario though.<<<<<
      .
      Which means they are equally nutty.
      .

      Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, to think logically, to have normal emotional responses, and to behave normally in social situations.
      As the illness continues, psychotic symptoms develop:
      • False beliefs or thoughts that are not based in reality (delusions)
      • Hearing, seeing, or feeling things that are not there (hallucinations)

      May 26, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @Artist- "Schizophrenia is a mental disorder..."

      Thank goodness no one has that here.

      May 26, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  12. Muneef

    Natural or ManMade Disasters...?

    Each will be touched by a burn of fire in the short or long run....no matter how or when....but it will always be called Doomsday for each until all....!!

    Here in Yemen;
    Seems the end of the world already started boiling up and over heating starting from Mideast...Sanaa the capital of Yemen has over heated and it's populations are moving out to safer regions...all regions suffering scarcity in fuels,gas and electricity....all can be got in black market increasing price...Sanaa air port is closed,flights diverted to other region smaller airports...

    Finally I just heard over the news that the dollar will drop down against the other currencies as did Humpty Dumpty...meaning we might go back to barter...??!

    May 26, 2011 at 7:04 am |
    • John Richardson

      Here's hoping that the Yemeni people get the life and freedoms they deserve.

      May 26, 2011 at 8:18 am |
    • Eric G

      My thoughts are with you my friend.

      Be well.
      Be safe.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:26 am |
    • Frogist

      @Muneef: You guys are having a very rough time over there. I can only hope it gets better soon.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:41 am |
    • Peace2All

      @Muneef

      Hey there -Muneef.

      Sorry to hear that things are heating up even more in Yemen.

      Keep bloggin' as you are able, and stay as connected as possible, while remaining as safe as possible.

      Take care, my friend...

      Peace...

      May 26, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • Muneef

      Thank you so much friends you have always been kind, we hope this black cloud will bypass us soon...the ruling tribal family are fighting among them selves and this is not related to the peaceful youth revolution, this fighting is by heavy arms and since the majority of the army are from tribal background it can become divided among it self using the countries weapons to shoot each other....
      Although am not in the capital city where the war is but have family members there sisters and mother to worry about beside the availability of normal needs... The capital city is cooler being on top of the mountains while where I am is the low costal lands and that makes it a hot temperature area that ranges between 33 and 38 in the summer...so they preferred the cool weather and the bullets over the heat of our area....!

      May 26, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
  13. Joseph Udoekpo

    THE KINGDOM OF GOD COMETH NOT WITH OBSERVATION: NEITHER SHALL THEY SAY, LO HERE! OR, LO THERE! FOR, BEHOLD, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU. LUKE 17: 20-21

    May 26, 2011 at 4:10 am |
    • KingdomWork

      yay! let it come. Lord!!!

      May 26, 2011 at 6:40 am |
    • Wife2AtheistSteve

      Quote mining from a book that you apparently have no clue of the history on is so easy....I can quote mine also but that would require pointing out the contradictions and amoral happenings and would in turn fall on deaf ears. How about we get with the century we reside in and realize that those verses are 2000+ yrs old and have no place in society? Religion is damaging regardless of what way you look at it and more so when you allow people like Camping to preach it. Due to some parent following Camping and believing what he said to be true there are 2 innocent children lying in hospital beds as a result of having their throats sliced by the Mother who in turn attempted to take her own life and will probably wish she had of after the charges of attempted murder go through...that is exactly where this kind of thing is damaging. This stuff should not be out in public...religion has no place outside of the home and certainly should not be taught to children who can't rationalize for themselves.

      May 26, 2011 at 7:40 am |
    • Joe R.

      @Wife2AtheistSteve

      First off, I haven't heard teh story of the mother and children to which you are referring. From your tone though, I am assuming that this woman probably was saying that God told her to kill her children, or herself, or something similar to that? Or she did some horrendous evil "in the name of God?"

      Just because somebody claims to be doing something in the name of God, does not mean that they are a Christian. Anybody can simply say that they are acting in the name of God, or state that the Bible told them something was ok to do, but they are distorting the truth in the Bible, and I am certain they do not have the approval of God. The Bible says that at the time of judgement, there will be many people who will claim to have preached in God's name, performed miracles in God's name, and driven out demons in God's name, but God will look at them and tell them that he never knew them, and that they were never truly acting on his authority, or with his approval. This shows that not everybody who merely professed to be a Christian is one.

      As for the history of the Bible, allow me to provide you with just a little bit of the history. First off, how can we be so certain that the Bible we have today is the same as the letters that the early disciples and apostles wrote and circulated? We know because of the numerous manuscpripts that have been found of the bible. You see, in ancient times, letters would have been written by these apostles, or indirectly by the apostles through a scribe. Over the years, scribes would have meticulously made copies of these letters, to distribute amongst the various churches. These scribes were professional writers. It was their job to write things accurately. If they messed up, they would start over from the beginning. Anyways, what all does this have to do with how we know if the Bible has changed or not? Well, one of the primary methods for ancient writing verification is how many manuscripts there are for a book, and how close in years the earliest manuscript is to the original writing.

      Homer's "The Illiad" for example is one of the more prolific early writings. The Illiad was believed to have been written around 800 BC. There are currently 643 ancient copies of this writing. The earliest manuscript was dated to about 400 BC, or about 400 years after the original. It is widely held in academic circles that the Illiad we have today is the same as the Illiad that Homer wrote, precisely because of the relatively small time period between the original and the earliest manuscript, and because of the large number of manuscripts.

      Now, what about the New Testament? The New Testament was written between the years 50 and 100 AD. The earliest manuscpripts we have are fragments that have been dated within only 50 years of original. For entire books, the earliest manuscripts are within 100 years of the original. For most of the New Testament, the earliest manuscripts are within 150 years, and for copies of the entire New Testament, the earliest manuscripts are within 225 years of hte original writings. Oh, and also, we have over 5300 manuscript copies and fragments total from the New Testament! If we can say authoritatively that Homer's the Illiad is acurate, then to say say the New Testament is not is a complete denial of the entire process of ancient text authentication that is currently deemed reliable by world expert historians.

      Another thing to considder with the Bible. Many of the books contained specific names, places, and events. Many of the people spoken of in the Bible, were alive at the time of the originanl writing. That means in that time, skeptics could have gone and interviewed those people still alive to corroborate what was written in those epistles. In other words, there were witnesses.

      So you see, the Bible is hisstoricaly accurate, and it is the same today as it was when it was written 2000 years ago. And even though ti was written in an ancient time, the principles in the book are still good for today. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And of course, love God.

      I can go into some of how the Bible speaks of historically accurate events as well if you'd like, but I didn't want to put them here, as this would end up a very long post.

      May 26, 2011 at 9:35 am |
    • CW

      @ Joe R.

      Whoooooa!!!!!.....Aaaaaaaaamen!!!!!!

      lead the horses to water...can't make'em drink....GREAT POST...LOVED EVERY POINT.

      May 26, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • The Bobinator

      Refuting Joe's Post, Part 1 due to stupid CNN filters...

      > Just because somebody claims to be doing something in the name of God, does not mean that they are a Christian. Anybody can simply say that they are acting in the name of God, or state that the Bible told them something was ok to do, but they are distorting the truth in the Bible, and I am certain they do not have the approval of God. The Bible says that at the time of judgement, there will be many people who will claim to have preached in God's name, performed miracles in God's name, and driven out demons in God's name, but God will look at them and tell them that he never knew them, and that they were never truly acting on his authority, or with his approval. This shows that not everybody who merely professed to be a Christian is one.

      You are correct. However, how do you know which version of Christianity is true? Faith has led to thousands of different types of Christianity in the US alone! Given that we know that parts of the bible are false, for example, Noah's Ark, the creation story, it would seem that true Christianity lies in accepting only certain parts of the bible. By what method do you use to determine what you should and shouldn't accept?

      May 26, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • The Bobinator

      Refuting Joe, Part 2

      > As for the history of the Bible, allow me to provide you with just a little bit of the history. First off, how can we be so certain that the Bible we have today is the same as the letters that the early disciples and apostles wrote and circulated?

      We can't actually. The author of the book of Matthew is actually not known and a hotly debated topic.

      > We know because of the numerous manuscpripts that have been found of the bible. You see, in ancient times, letters would have been written by these apostles, or indirectly by the apostles through a scribe. er the years, scribes would have meticulously made copies of these letters, to distribute amongst the various churches. These scribes were professional writers. It was their job to write things accurately. If they messed up, they would start over from the beginning. Anyways, what all does this have to do with how we know if the Bible has changed or not? Well, one of the primary methods for ancient writing verification is how many manuscripts there are for a book, and how close in years the earliest manuscript is to the original writing.

      Then how do you explain additions to the bible that are known forgeries like snake handling? Someone made a change there. How also do you explain the historical altering of the role of Pilot, from being neutral in his role to almost blameless in the execution of Christ and how it lines up with Roman issues Christians had to face at the time? These are observable changes in the text.

      Furthermore, so what if they are accurate? Just because I know Stan Lee existed and I know he wrote spider man doesn't make it any more true.

      May 26, 2011 at 10:59 am |
    • The Bobinator

      Refuting Joe, Part 3

      > Homer's "The Illiad" for example is one of the more prolific early writings. The Illiad was believed to have been written around 800 BC. There are currently 643 ancient copies of this writing. The earliest manuscript was dated to about 400 BC, or about 400 years after the original. It is widely held in academic circles that the Illiad we have today is the same as the Illiad that Homer wrote, precisely because of the relatively small time period between the original and the earliest manuscript, and because of the large number of manuscripts.

      You can't compare the two. By your logic, because we can definitively find the source of a single docu-ment (let's say Roman historical docu-ments) therefore all docu-ments are legitimate. Your argument is silly.

      > Now, what about the New Testament? The New Testament was written between the years 50 and 100 AD.

      Meaning the apostiles and most, if not all of the eye witnesses would have been dead. Not many lived past 50 in those days due to malnutrition, disease, violence and sickness.

      > The earliest manuscpripts we have are fragments that have been dated within only 50 years of original. For entire books, the earliest manuscripts are within 100 years of the original. For most of the New Testament, the earliest manuscripts are within 150 years, and for copies of the entire New Testament, the earliest manuscripts are within 225 years of hte original writings. Oh, and also, we have over 5300 manuscript copies and fragments total from the New Testament! If we can say authoritatively that Homer's the Illiad is acurate, then to say say the New Testament is not is a complete denial of the entire process of ancient text authentication that is currently deemed reliable by world expert historians.

      Even if I accept your argument, which I don't, so what? Let's say I grant you that the writings are absolutely the writings of the apostles. Let's say that what they wrote what they actually believed (and not what they want you to believe). That still does not prove there is a God anymore then people who think they've been abducted by aliens think that that is proof for aliens. It simply doesn't follow. As a bit of an aside too, resurrections were fairly commonplace at that time and occured (if you believe the bible) to many people who were not the son of God. Lazurus being one, and not mentioning a peep about what he/she went through.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:09 am |
    • YeahRight

      @Joe
      The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
      Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
      The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
      Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
      This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
      Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).

      The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:11 am |
    • The Bobinator

      Refuting Joe, Part 4

      > Another thing to considder with the Bible. Many of the books contained specific names, places, and events. Many of the people spoken of in the Bible, were alive at the time of the originanl writing. That means in that time, skeptics could have gone and interviewed those people still alive to corroborate what was written in those epistles. In other words, there were witnesses.

      The same way we can talk to alien abductees today as well.

      > So you see, the Bible is hisstoricaly accurate, and it is the same today as it was when it was written 2000 years ago.

      Same does not mean it wasn't written without falsehoods. Furthermore, your argument is silly, do you say that the Quran, which is far better doc-umented historically is true as well? Why aren't you islamic?

      > And even though ti was written in an ancient time, the principles in the book are still good for today. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And of course, love God.

      Yes, like bringing in to strangers into your house to save them from a mob, and to satisfy this mob, throwing your daughter out to be abused and then killed. Or like how it's Ok to torture someone on a bet. Or how it's perfectlly acceptable to slaughter another people and keept he virgins for yourself.

      > I can go into some of how the Bible speaks of historically accurate events as well if you'd like, but I didn't want to put them here, as this would end up a very long post.

      James Bond has historical facts too. Does that mean it's true? Your arguments are lacking logic, reason and accuracy.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:12 am |
    • YeahRight

      @Joe continued....

      Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
      Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:13 am |
    • Joe R.

      @The Bobinator

      It would be very lengthy for me to try to address in detail every point you bring up at the moment, but I will try to address your questions the best I known how bit by bit, so please don't think if I don't respond to a question you posted that it is because I am ignoring that question.

      First off, you do pose good and valid questions. I can certainly understand having them. Also, I'll state right off that I realize that it is highly unlikely that I will convince anybody that what I believe is true in a forum like this, just as you are not likely to convince me that what you believe is true. I'll simply try to address your questions as best I can while also keeping things relatively short (entire books have been written on some of the things I mention, as I am sure entire books have been written on some of the things you mention).

      For your question about how we know if the Bible we have today is the same as those early letters, that is the point I was trying to make when speaking about the manuscripts. Because we have these thousands of both partial and full manuscripts, we can be certain that the Bible today is the same as the letter from 2000 years ago, because they match. The ancient manuscripts say the same thing as the modern bibles. Where there have been differences found, they have either been in the case of a number (saying something like 20 instead of 30), or in the way something has been said. These differences do not actually change the MEANING of the text though. This manuscript method is the method used by historians to authenticate texts. As I said, it is accepted that the Illiad we have today is hte Illiad that Homer wrote because we have those manuscripts. The exact same method is used for the Bible. The early manuscripts are the same as the Bible today, so we know that it has not changed.

      As for how do we know which "Christian faith" or which "denomination" is the true faith. That is a bit of a sticky debate, because many of these faiths have similar core tenants, while they differ on many secondary beliefs. That said, often times compromising in the smaller things can end up leading to compromising in the bigger things. The basis for the Christian faith though, is supposed to be the Bible. To the Christian, the Bible is supposed to be the final and ultimate authority, as it is believed to be the inspired, divine word of God. (For the sake of discussion on this point, I won't debate on whether the Bible is true or not, because whether it is true or not, it is still used by Christians, or is supposed to be used, as their authority.) So naturally, the true Christian faith is the one that follows the teachings of the Bible. If a churches teachings to do align with the teachings of the Bible, then they are naturally not following what is supposed to be the teachings of God. Personally, I believe that there have been many churches that have fallen away fom the teachings of the Bible. It is up to the individual though, to check what he is being taught by the church, to what is taught in the Bible.

      The last thing I will talk about in this particular post for now is this. How can you know for certainty that the creation account and the account of Noah are false? I will concede that there may not be a great deal of evidnce for them, and that these are things that for my part take a bit more faith for me. The absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of falicy.

      On the matter of the creation, the widely held belief is that the universe began with the "Big Bang" and that life evolved on earth. Here is the one fundamental problem with that idea though. It has a beginning. Everything must have a cause, and something cannot be made from nothing. Material cannot be made from immaterial. It is stated that at the beginning, the universe began with the explosion of, for lack of a better term, infinitely small and infintely dense particle of matter (I'm not sure off the top of my head of a better way to explain it). But where did this matter come from? How could it have come from absolutely nothing? From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing. People then are left with only two options. They can either have faith that it is possible for something to come from absolutely nothing, or they can have faith that there is a higher power, an intelligent creator. By definition, God is outside of time, outside of space, all powerful, and without beginning or end, thus being the only one capable of creating something from absolutely nothing.

      Also, look at the complexity of life itself. Life is composed of cells, composed of DNA, composed of proteins. The simplest form of life is a cell. But even a single cell has an extremely complex makeup. Proteins must be put together in just the right way for the individual parts of a cell to work. And all of those individual parts of the cell must work to make the whole cell work. And this must happen not only once, but many of billions and trillions of times over again, for life to occur, especially in more complex life forms. Even if we assume that the earth is 4.9 billion years old (I think that is the number) and if life did begin some 2 billion years ago, statistically, the chances that enough things would go right, just by chance, are so astronomical, that the earth would not need billions of years, but trillions of years to produce life as we know it today.

      May 26, 2011 at 11:46 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Joe R.

      There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The Gospels were written by god knows who in the third person. The Gospels were written with an agenda i.e., Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.

      We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
      -Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

      The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
      -Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

      Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
      -C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

      There are no known secular writings about Jesus, that aren't forgeries, later insertions, or hearsay. NONE!

      Most of the supposed authors lived AFTER Jesus was dead. Can you say hearsay?

      We don't even have a wooden shelf that Jesus might have built. Or anything written by Jesus (He was probably illiterate).

      The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention Jesus or have any New Testament scripture.

      Jesus, if he existed, was not considered important enough to write about by any contemporary person. The myth hadn't had a chance to flourish.

      Paul's writings were the first, about Jesus. But, Paul's writing was done 25 to 30 years after Jesus was dead. In a primitive, ultra-supersti_tious society, 25 years is a lot of time for a myth to grow. Paul never met Jesus.
      Some people feel that Paul, not Jesus, is the real father of what most Christians believe today (Pauline Christianity).

      Questions on the Crucifixion story:
      "Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save." Mark 15:31

      "Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe..." Mark 15:32

      It would appear, that the chief priests are admitting that Jesus "saved" others. If they knew this, then there is no reason for them to demand that Jesus descend from the cross, in order for them to believe. They already admitted to knowing of Jesus's "miracles".

      I'm sure you will apply Evangelical gymnastics to these verses, but taken literally it would seem that this is just an embellishment by Mark. A work of fiction.

      Here is some more:
      According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."
      Yet not a single mention of a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone. 'Cause it didn't happen!

      Mathew 27 51:53
      51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
      How come nobody wrote about zombies running through the cities? 'Cause it is all b.s.

      If Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, who died for man's redemption, then this would be the most important event in the history of man.
      Why wouldn't god have ensured there was tons of evidence that this was true? Multiple Writings by contemporary eyewitnesses – Jews and Romans.

      You are going to want to say that there IS lots of evidence, but look at reality: There are way more people in the world, who are not Christians than who are. Obviously, the evidence is not adequate to convince even a majority of the world's people
      .
      Cheers!

      May 26, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
    • So....

      “But where did this matter come from? How could it have come from absolutely nothing? From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing. People then are left with only two options. They can either have faith that it is possible for something to come from absolutely nothing, or they can have faith that there is a higher power, an intelligent creator.”

      The problem is that who then made the creator since a creator couldn’t come from nothing either. LOL!

      May 26, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • Joe R.

      @ The Bobinator and @YeahRight

      You both pose good questions. There is no way I can address that many things, especially in a forum such as this (CNN comment board). It would take me far too long. I'll still try to address some of the questions, but I should also state that I am certainly no expert. The things I state are gleaned from reading I have done. To me, it makes sense. It makes the most sense to me. If you are interested, two of the books I have read are "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith" both written by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an investigative journalist and an atheist. He set out interviewing authoritative experts in various fields all with the purpose of disproving Christianity. The conclusion he came to was that it was all true, and he became a Christian himself. I have read other articles and books as well, but those two were the first ones I read on this subject. It may convince you, or it may not.

      Ulitmately, the reasoning and logic and evidence I have seen is still more convincing to me and makes more sense to me than the evidence I have seen against Christianity.

      Beyond the logic and evidence though, what holds me to my faith is my personal experience. I have seen in my own life and the lives of those closest to me, how God has made a difference. The comfort, the joy, the love, the provision, the changed lives for the better. It does indeed still boil down to faith. I have faith in what I don't see, and what I don't fully understand. That faith leads me to try to live a better life, to try to treat people with love and compassion, and to try to help those in need. Simply put, being a Christian is about two things. Loving God and loving people.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • Joel

      “that the earth would not need billions of years, but trillions of years to produce life as we know it today”

      You realize when we look at the other billions of galaxies out in space we are looking back in time. The universe is revealing to us that it does take time to evolve. They are watching planets being created as well as being destroyed.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > It would be very lengthy for me to try to address in detail every point you bring up at the moment, but I will try to address your questions the best I known how bit by bit, so please don't think if I don't respond to a question you posted that it is because I am ignoring that question.

      No problem!

      > First off, you do pose good and valid questions. I can certainly understand having them. Also, I'll state right off that I realize that it is highly unlikely that I will convince anybody that what I believe is true in a forum like this, just as you are not likely to convince me that what you believe is true.

      No, that's not how it works. I have presented objections to your assertations. The only method for you have before you to is to tell you why it's not applicable or show them to be wrong.

      > I'll simply try to address your questions as best I can while also keeping things relatively short (entire books have been written on some of the things I mention, as I am sure entire books have been written on some of the things you mention).

      Books are not a source of truth.

      > For your question about how we know if the Bible we have today is the same as those early letters, that is the point I was trying to make when speaking about the manuscripts. Because we have these thousands of both partial and full manuscripts, we can be certain that the Bible today is the same as the letter from 2000 years ago, because they match. The ancient manuscripts say the same thing as the modern bibles. Where there have been differences found, they have either been in the case of a number (saying something like 20 instead of 30), or in the way something has been said. These differences do not actually change the MEANING of the text though. This manuscript method is the method used by historians to authenticate texts. As I said, it is accepted that the Illiad we have today is hte Illiad that Homer wrote because we have those manuscripts. The exact same method is used for the Bible. The early manuscripts are the same as the Bible today, so we know that it has not changed.

      The progression of the story doesn't affect the authenticity of the source, it does affect the authenticity of the historical claims. In the case of Pilot, how does one go from being neutral in it to being an unwilling participant who acts to try and save Jesus?

      > As for how do we know which "Christian faith" or which "denomination" is the true faith. That is a bit of a sticky debate, because many of these faiths have similar core tenants, while they differ on many secondary beliefs. That said, often times compromising in the smaller things can end up leading to compromising in the bigger things. The basis for the Christian faith though, is supposed to be the Bible. To the Christian, the Bible is supposed to be the final and ultimate authority, as it is believed to be the inspired, divine word of God. (For the sake of discussion on this point, I won't debate on whether the Bible is true or not, because whether it is true or not, it is still used by Christians, or is supposed to be used, as their authority.) So naturally, the true Christian faith is the one that follows the teachings of the Bible.

      No, because there are parts of the bible that are proven to be forgeries. Like snake handling. If that's fake and you believe in it, you're one step further from the real truth. How many steps is does it take before you are in heaven and then not in heaven?

      > If a churches teachings to do align with the teachings of the Bible, then they are naturally not following what is supposed to be the teachings of God. Personally, I believe that there have been many churches that have fallen away fom the teachings of the Bible. It is up to the individual though, to check what he is being taught by the church, to what is taught in the Bible.

      That's what you think. It doesn't matter what you think is right. It matters what God has decided is right. How do you know what God wants? Belief leads many people to the wrong answer. How do you know you're not thinking the wrong thing?

      > The last thing I will talk about in this particular post for now is this. How can you know for certainty that the creation account and the account of Noah are false?

      The creation account is proven wrong by the fossils found in sedmintary layers. You never find a bunny with a dinosaur, which you should see if creation is true. Furthermore, dendrochronology (tree rings) have been dated back to 26,000 years ago, well before the supposed creation of the world.

      Noah's Ark is a bit more complicated.

      As species come close to extinction, their numbers dwindle. As their numbers drop so does the genetic differences. When we see these near extinctions occur, the animals exhibit specific traits. For example, cheetahs can accept organs, skin and the like from other cheetahs (by way of surgery) with no rejection.

      If Noah's ark occured and most, if not all animals went down to 2 individuals, why do we not see that all species have these same traits?

      > On the matter of the creation, the widely held belief is that the universe began with the "Big Bang" and that life evolved on earth. Here is the one fundamental problem with that idea though. It has a beginning. Everything must have a cause, and something cannot be made from nothing. Material cannot be made from immaterial. It is stated that at the beginning, the universe began with the explosion of, for lack of a better term, infinitely small and infintely dense particle of matter (I'm not sure off the top of my head of a better way to explain it). But where did this matter come from? How could it have come from absolutely nothing? From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing. People then are left with only two options. They can either have faith that it is possible for something to come from absolutely nothing, or they can have faith that there is a higher power, an intelligent creator. By definition, God is outside of time, outside of space, all powerful, and without beginning or end, thus being the only one capable of creating something from absolutely nothing.

      You do not have the faintest clue what the big bang asserts. No one knows what occured before the big bang. There may have been something that we cannot see or measure as of yet.

      > Also, look at the complexity of life itself. Life is composed of cells, composed of DNA, composed of proteins. The simplest form of life is a cell.

      You'd be wrong.

      > But even a single cell has an extremely complex makeup. Proteins must be put together in just the right way for the individual parts of a cell to work. And all of those individual parts of the cell must work to make the whole cell work. And this must happen not only once, but many of billions and trillions of times over again, for life to occur, especially in more complex life forms. Even if we assume that the earth is 4.9 billion years old (I think that is the number) and if life did begin some 2 billion years ago, statistically, the chances that enough things would go right, just by chance, are so astronomical, that the earth would not need billions of years, but trillions of years to produce life as we know it today.

      Evolution is not a chance process. You'd understand this if you had a grounding in the subject.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
    • Doreen

      “That faith leads me to try to live a better life, to try to treat people with love and compassion, and to try to help those in need. Simply put, being a Christian is about two things. Loving God and loving people”

      You do realize that those that are NOT Christian have those exact same traits. They are also loving, compassionate and help those in need. You don’t need a God for that. I actually was at a restaurant, there was a church across the street and mass was over, the people were leaving. At the entrance to get out on either side of the parking lot were two homeless men holding signs asking for help. ALL of the Christians drove by and not one offered help. I was the one that got food to go for them and gave them lunch. So Christians think about that next time you drive by a homeless person asking for help!

      May 26, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
    • Wife2AtheistSteve

      @JoeR

      First of all, I have researched the bible and believe it or not, own one!!! Part of the issue with it is that it has been translated so many times that it can't possibly be used as fact.

      Second, it does not matter why the Mother attempted to kill her children, the fact remains that she did it in the name of religion...a vast issue in this world...too much chaos and craziness is caused by religion. That woman honestly believed that the rapture was going to happen.

      Third, find me a purely good Christian please..one who has never done anything wrong in their lives. No-one is perfect.

      The claims made by Christians to defend themselves are unsubstantiated and without evidence of any form are very detrimental to society.

      I stand by what I said.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      @JoeR
      Not to come to my wifes aid since she isn't as fully versed in biblical history as you but you did raise an interesting point. When you compare the accuracy and similarity of the current bible text to the earliest known manuscripts and then draw a parallel to Homers Illiad isn't that demonstrating a fault. Homers writings are myth and fantasy. That the stories in the bible or in Homers books relfect real countries, cities, tribes ..whatever is far from surprising since they would be using their own cultural references as a background. The real issue here is that no amount of anecdotal evidence is sufficient to demonsttrate that the supernatural claims actually happened. Textual accounts of miracles are not proof of anything and never should be.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • ScottK

      Aside from all the "the book is the same as it was 2000 years ago" stuff from Joe R, the real question isn't whether it was written by who they say wrote it, and not whether the passages are the same as those original writings, but whether or not it was divinely inspired. And there is no proof that it was. And the "look at the complexity of life itself" argument to prove there is a God to give the divine inspiration does not work since once you claim a cell must have been created because of it's complexity you end up with a far more complex diety which by your own logic must have been created by something more complex, and so on and so on.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
    • Quantum Gravitational Fluctuation

      @ So .....
      Sorry to bust that bubble, but particles come and go, (get it..something from nothing), into and out of existence all the time. It's a known property of space, even of an absolute vacuum. Your science seems to be a bit lacking. The suject would take all night to discuss.My name is one of Stephen Hawking's ( ever hear of him ?) theories of how the universe began, from nothing. Unfortunately, you are totally wrong here. There is another question which can be implied by that question, but I will let you ask it. Hint : E=MC(squared).

      May 26, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
  14. Leppo the Wombat

    Jesus preached the end of the world too, just like Camoing. He gave a rough time frame, same as Camping. He was wrong, just like Camping.

    May 26, 2011 at 2:11 am |
  15. News Flash

    Ironic isn’t it? When you become that which you hate most.

    How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion, including a polarized belief system that represents everything as good, good, good or bad, bad, bad ("how religion poisons everything"), the unquestioned authority of its leaders, and even the portrayal of bad ideas as like demons (parasitic memes) that need to be cast out ("breaking the spell"). ~ Erin Johnson an Atheist posted in a Science blog.

    May 26, 2011 at 1:25 am |
    • RealityLITE

      Hey!!! Where are you taking me??? And why am I in a hand basket

      May 26, 2011 at 2:04 am |
    • Leppo the Wombat

      Wow that's lame. I mean, it's so obviously wrong that only a world-class dingbat would mistake it for true.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:05 am |
    • Nice Try....

      Sorry Leppo but if the shoe fits...

      May 26, 2011 at 2:18 am |
    • Q

      @Nice Try – If the shoe you're referring to is also made of straw then perhaps your comment follows, but I'd offer the original post is a rather weak misrepresentation contrived for an equally flawed tu quoque fallacy.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:26 am |
    • to Assume....

      How is it so wrong?
      Are you denying you do not follow the four horseman? [doctrine]
      A set of beliefs on religion. [from what I seen in these post I could facilitate a scientific fact]
      Do you not evangelize your belief without even to stop and think? [Faith that you are right.]

      May 26, 2011 at 2:37 am |
    • Q

      @to Assume –

      "Are you denying you do not follow the four horseman? [doctrine]" – Yes, I deny that I "follow" them. I've read them and agree and disagree.

      "A set of beliefs on religion. [from what I seen in these post I could facilitate a scientific fact]" – The principle "beliefs" of New Atheism contrasted against more traditional Atheism is simply a more direct confrontational approach in the public square. I have no idea what your bracketed statement means...

      "Do you not evangelize your belief without even to stop and think? [Faith that you are right.]" – I've stopped and thought plenty. I offer opinions with the ever present knowledge that I could be mistaken. My "faith" is not without some measure of tangible evidence as opposed to a "faith" in supernatural claims which are inherently unverifiable...

      May 26, 2011 at 2:49 am |
    • Bingo

      I would have to totally agree.
      I have been thinking along those lines for awhile now, Atheist are not part of a religion, the only requirement is not to follow a god; but the New Atheist, have a set of rules and beliefs, leadership, practices. And then try to hide behind the cover of Atheism.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:51 am |
    • Q

      @Bingo – "...but the New Atheist, have a set of rules and beliefs, leadership, practices." – I'm sorry but could you provide a reference describing the specific rules, beliefs, hierarchical structure, and practices of New Atheism? Again, the only difference between traditional atheism and new atheism is style, i.e. directly and openly confrontational of supernatural belief.

      May 26, 2011 at 3:00 am |
    • to Assume....

      [doctrine]" – Yes, I deny that I "follow" them. I've read them and agree and disagree.
      Which translates to this is the "New Artiest Bible" Since it sets the ideas in which you get the whole Ideas from, some Christians do not believe the whole bible.

      "A set of beliefs on religion. [from what I seen in these post I could facilitate a scientific fact]" – The principle "beliefs" of New Atheism contrasted against more traditional Atheism is simply a more direct confrontational approach in the public square. I have no idea what your bracketed statement means...

      First wrong, Artiest do not believe in a god, they do not feel the need to question proof there is one. I have heard that many many times.

      Derived from thousands of post here.

      Set of beliefs:
      religion is a the reason of the evils today
      people who believe in god are mentally unstable
      you must have religious people prove to you there is god.

      "Do you not evangelize your belief without even to stop and think? [Faith that you are right.]" – I've stopped and thought plenty. I offer opinions with the ever present knowledge that I could be mistaken. My "faith" is not without some measure of tangible evidence as opposed to a "faith" in supernatural claims which are inherently unverifiable...

      I have seen the same people post the same questions over and over and over here.... and have them answered every time and then they try to debunk them. Even when there was a valid argument.

      May 26, 2011 at 3:13 am |
    • News Flash

      Great points here really.

      -All religions are stupid.
      How can you know unless you know all religions, blanket statement there, you are making this assumption based on what you have been told, not because you know it. So by your own standards this is unproven.

      -Religion is what is wrong with the world today.
      Really never heard of someone pretending to be straight for acceptance and to prevent ridicule? Ever think people do the same about religion. One can call themselves anything. If I stood in a garage and called myself a car would I then be a car?
      Since you cannot prove that then, your taking it on faith. And again by your own standards this is unproven.

      -god is imaginary and there is no evidence he does exist.
      Maybe to you.But there are people that have witness evens that made them believe. Near death experiences, etc. Therefore to them there is a god or God and they have their own proof.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:00 am |
    • Q

      @to Assume –
      "Which translates to this is the "New Artiest Bible" Since it sets the ideas in which you get the whole Ideas from, some Christians do not believe the whole bible." You are erroneously conflating a collection of views with common themes to an alleged divinely revealed text. My personal skepticism regarding the lack of evidence for religious faith were well established long before I read Hitchens or Dawkins, i.e. about the time I realized that Santa Claus was a myth employed to elicit desired behaviors.

      "First wrong, Artiest (sic) do not believe in a god, they do not feel the need to question proof there is one. I have heard that many many times." Incorrect. Atheism is a non-belief in deities, all deities. Their non-belief is the product of questioning the "proof" claimed for any given god (for which there is none). Again, the difference between New and Traditional Atheism is a more confrontational and public presentation of this skepticism.

      "Set of beliefs:
      religion is a the reason of the evils today
      people who believe in god are mentally unstable
      you must have religious people prove to you there is god." – Yes, these are all beliefs that are common among both New and Traditional Atheists, however, they are not founded in any divinely revealed text nor do they serve to venerate any object. This is the distinction between a set of "beliefs" and a set of "religious beliefs".

      "I have seen the same people post the same questions over and over and over here.... and have them answered every time and then they try to debunk them. Even when there was a valid argument." With respect, perhaps english isn't your native language, but this statement makes no sense in context. If you are referring to questions regarding specific supernatural claims, then I can only assume the answers of which you speak are the standard magical sort which have no basis in reality or evidential support.

      This attempt to paint atheism as some kind of religion is ridiculous and again, is a poor attempt at a tu quoque fallacy. The organization and motivations for adherents of atheism is very different from any legitimate definition of a "religion". Religion by most common definitions pertains to beliefs and practices which serve to venerate a deity or collection of deities. If the central tenet of Atheism is a non-belief in a deities or deities, it simply fails to meet this minimal definitional requirement. "Not golfing" is not a type of sport. "Cranial alopecia" is not a hair color. "Abstinence" is not a position for intercourse. "Atheism" (New or Old) is similarly not a "religion"....

      May 26, 2011 at 4:09 am |
    • pointless excuses

      @q

      I have never had an Atheist ask me to prove them that God exist, Yet I see it all over here, I had many close friends for years that were happy with me accepting them and that was fine, If the question ever did arise they would ask me with respect and I didn't belittle them and didn't go on for more then it took to answer. They told me that my belief didn't bother them and if I felt there was enough fact to prove it to myself then that was enough. We all hated when people tried to shove their beliefs down someone else throats and so deemed them "the things that would not shut up" I have after many years being the victim of over zealous preaching made it my point to never try to do this with anyone, I told them my faith and let it drop, it was up to them if they wanted to know.

      The point is the New Atheist on this board is the new "things that wouldn't shut up" And have become the very cornerstone of everything I would associate with an overly religions zealot. Sorry but that is how the New Atheist present themselves and more people are feeling the same way, They have walked right into the trap they are trying to avoid.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:32 am |
    • pointless excuses

      I would like to point out the irony.

      Basic understanding of psychology 101 stuff

      If you attack someone they will by reflex resist and feel the need to defend. Your only strengthening the faith, by attempts at your "awaking" are futile.

      Did anyone ever win you into their beliefs by criticizing you then arrogantly telling you this is what is true? No, therefore this ideology is flawed.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:47 am |
    • John Richardson

      Unquestioned authority of the leaders of the New Atheism? None of them have any authority over anyone as far I can tell.

      May 26, 2011 at 8:21 am |
    • Woody

      "Are you denying you do not follow the four horseman?"

      If you are, in fact, following the four horsemen, be very careful where you step.

      May 26, 2011 at 9:17 am |
    • Steve

      Those interested should read the original blog:
      http://blog.drwile.com/?p=1586

      May 26, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • Frogist

      @pointless excuses: I think there are quite a few tenacious atheists on this blog. But that's the nature of this space. Just because people debate here online doesn't make an atheist more or less likely to carry that outside of this forum. So I can't really consider that boisterous att!tude as proof that atheism is a religion or has become, as you put it "things that would not shut up".
      I have had people approach me with the kind of fervour that appears like religious proselytizing but on diverse topics like outdoor sports, organic baby food, libertarianism etc etc. But we would hardly call these things a religion. The difference is distinct.
      It is only the proximity in subject matter (belief in deities v non-belief in deities) that make people confuse atheism with a religion. Certainly there is an inherent insidious attempt to discredit atheists by naming them that which they refute. But that is a political maneuver and should not be confused with the actual position of an atheist.
      Furthermore we have the difficulty of language. The word "religious" can be used in two ways – to mean relating to religion (belief in deities), OR in "religiously" as a synonym for "passionately". People can debate a topic religiously without their position being religious.
      There are many factors that can confuse the topic but it does not in any way point to atheism as a religion unless as Q pointed out we ignore the most basic definition of a religion.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      Set of Atheistic Beliefs – A refutation.

      >religion is a the reason of the evils today
      Who said that? I doubt anyone would claim that all crimes are committed for religious reasons. I would disagree with anyone who said such a thing because it's evidently not true.

      > people who believe in god are mentally unstable
      They are to a degree. They hold a belief that they do not verify via evidence. But this isn't a belief, it's a conclusion based on what we know about logical thinking.

      > you must have religious people prove to you there is god.
      If they think there is a God they do have to prove it. That's also logic, not a belief.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > The point is the New Atheist on this board is the new "things that wouldn't shut up" And have become the very cornerstone of everything I would associate with an overly religions zealot. Sorry but that is how the New Atheist present themselves and more people are feeling the same way, They have walked right into the trap they are trying to avoid.

      This is a fail argument. We can act like religious zealots if we like to, doesn't mean we're wrong and it has absolutely nothing to say about how we came to our conclusions.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
  16. Mark from Middle River

    Well, if there were 5k posts/comments then what is this thread for? Too start it all over again?

    Come on Atheist .... and fellow Christians ...we are now just entertaining someone at CNN headquarters.

    I do not know why we do not have this out at the Colosseum in Rome with some big saying the barbarian hordes and then the forces of Scipio Africanus!!

    May 26, 2011 at 1:22 am |
  17. Reality

    Enough is enough!!!!

    May 25, 2011 at 11:40 pm |
    • Evan

      I agree. People like Mr. Camping give our faith a bad name. In the article above, I believe Tim's comment sums it all up.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:09 am |
    • Q

      I would offer that Tim's comment, particularly the last sentence, is more a description of Deism than Christianity where the latter holds to specific supernatural claims for Christ and specific faith requirements for "salvation". One can believe in a "higher power" and find the central faith tenets of Christianity and/or the NT supernatural claims at odds with reason, e.g. Thomas Jefferson. As many others have suggested, the principle difference between Camping and his followers and more mainstream Christian theology is simply a matter of timing...

      May 26, 2011 at 2:19 am |
    • to Assume....

      Can you honestly say that Q? do you have any idea just how many denominations of christiananity there are? You ask a baptist and the will tell you that Catholicism is wrong for their idol worship of Mary and that Mary wasn't a virgin when she died. The variations boggle the mind, the bible is open to interpretation by each person who reads it. To be a 'christian' is only one step away from deitism, you have to believe that Jesus is the son of god and died for your sins, that's why john 3:16 is such a big deal. even different religions have different bibles.

      May 26, 2011 at 2:32 am |
    • Q

      @to Assume – I'm not sure I understand what part of my post you're taking issue with? I was referring to Evan's comments regarding Tim's comment from the article. Yes, I understand there is a large variety of Christian denominations, but when distilled, they do all hold core beliefs (i.e. those you describe with the extrapolation that accepting those two propositions on faith alone is the key to "salvation"). Also a broadly consistent notion among mainstream Christianity is that of a judgment day in which those who have accepted the central faith tenets of Christianity will be spared some eternal demise. It's this last part that Camping and mainstream Christianity have in common with the only apparent difference being when the event is to occur (i.e. Camping's dates vs "some unknowable future date").

      May 26, 2011 at 2:41 am |
  18. Peter F

    He'll keep revising until he's dead. What's to discuss? The man is a false prophet.

    May 25, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
    • Steve

      There is grave doubt that such a person ever existed or was born; that makes me a BIRTHER. Where is the evidence?

      http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

      May 25, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
    • Reality

      From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

      "That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

      “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

      “While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

      “My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

      I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

      See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

      Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

      Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at books.google.com/books.

      There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

      See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

      From ask.com,

      "One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style.

      Then there are these scriptural references:

      Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

      Added suggested readings:

      o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
      2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
      – a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication–
      30-60 CE Passion Narrative
      40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
      50-60 1 Thessalonians
      50-60 Philippians
      50-60 Galatians
      50-60 1 Corinthians
      50-60 2 Corinthians
      50-60 Romans
      50-60 Philemon
      50-80 Colossians
      50-90 Signs Gospel
      50-95 Book of Hebrews
      50-120 Didache
      50-140 Gospel of Thomas
      50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
      50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
      65-80 Gospel of Mark
      70-100 Epistle of James
      70-120 Egerton Gospel
      70-160 Gospel of Peter
      70-160 Secret Mark
      70-200 Fayyum Fragment
      70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
      73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
      80-100 2 Thessalonians
      80-100 Ephesians
      80-100 Gospel of Matthew
      80-110 1 Peter
      80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
      80-130 Gospel of Luke
      80-130 Acts of the Apostles
      80-140 1 Clement
      80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
      80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
      80-250 Christian Sibyllines
      90-95 Apocalypse of John
      90-120 Gospel of John
      90-120 1 John
      90-120 2 John
      90-120 3 John
      90-120 Epistle of Jude
      93 Flavius Josephus
      100-150 1 Timothy
      100-150 2 Timothy
      100-150 T-itus
      100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
      100-150 Secret Book of James
      100-150 Preaching of Peter
      100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
      100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
      100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
      100-160 2 Peter

      3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
      – "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"
      4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html–"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
      5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
      6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
      7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html
      8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
      joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm
      9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
      10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
      (Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
      by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
      11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
      Presented on March 18, 1994
      ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2
      12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
      wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?t-itle=Jesus_Database
      13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
      faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html
      14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
      mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
      15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
      mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
      16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/
      17. Diseases in the Bible:
      etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
      18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
      theologians, ethics, etc.
      religion-online.org/
      19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
      mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
      20. The New Testament Gateway – Internet NT ntgateway.com/
      21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
      ntgateway.com/
      22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
      members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html
      23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php
      24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separated into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
      25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
      faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
      26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf
      27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by t-itle with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html
      28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
      infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
      29. NT and beyond time line:
      pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/
      30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
      harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm
      31. See http://www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.
      32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.
      33. The books of the following : Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.
      34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.
      35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus

      May 25, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
    • I can copy n paste too

      JEWISH TESTIMONY

      The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord’s existence is that of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews, the historian twice referred to Jesus. In one passage he called Jesus “the Christ,” referred to His “marvelous deeds,” and alluded to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30). In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (20.9.1).

      Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation: “The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera” (1965, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus’ miracles as “magic,” and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus.

      May 25, 2011 at 11:47 pm |
    • Evan

      Steve,

      I'm guessing you don't believe Alexander the Great, the Buddha, Confucious, or Charlemagne existed either, right? There is less evidence that these people existed than that Jesus did.

      "Where's the evidence?"

      I suggest you read the book "Evidence for Christianity" by Josh McDowell.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:08 am |
    • tallulah13

      Actually, there is substantial archeological evidence that Alexander the Great existed. In fact, they found the tomb and remains of his father, Phillip II of Macedon.

      May 26, 2011 at 1:34 am |
    • tulala

      Tallulah..you said: "Actually, there is substantial archeological evidence that Alexander the TullahGreat existed. In fact, they found the tomb and remains of his father, Phillip II of Macedon."

      "The discovery of such evidence can prove nothing else than the (former0 existence of the man that lieth there."

      May 26, 2011 at 5:13 am |
    • myklds

      Peter F said and I quote, "He'll keep revising until he's dead. What's to discuss? The man is a false prophet."

      While, Steve replied saying, "There is grave doubt that such a person ever existed or was born; that makes me a BIRTHER. Where is the evidence?"

      @ Steve..It guess Peter was thinking of camping when he made his post. While your reply was referring to Jesus.

      It is not a crime to proof read or to use a lil an-alysis before you make a reply, it will not harm you either. Trust me.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:49 am |
    • myklds

      I*

      May 26, 2011 at 6:54 am |
    • Frogist

      LOL@ Steve the Jesus Birther. Hilarious!

      May 26, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Evan

      You said: "I suggest you read the book "Evidence for Christianity" by Josh McDowell."

      There is no evidence that Jesus ever actually existed. What evidence do you have?

      May 26, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
  19. Ron

    Steve, that was a laugh and a half!
    I'm not Christian so I really don't care but one thing I watched in all of this was so many "Christians" who seemed to be happy that they were going to be taken away, while the rest of humanity was going to suffer AND it didn't seem to bother them in the least. Not actually a religion of love in my book.
    Now, Camping is saying Oct. 21, 2011. Lets see, he has prophesied twice now and nothing happened but people are still listening. How utterly sad. I also found it interesting that people sold everything and quite their jobs but apparently Camping kept everything he owns and all his money too. Are people missing something here or what!

    May 25, 2011 at 11:00 pm |
    • Steve

      Many are listening, and giving money!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Radio

      May 25, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
    • Evan

      Ron, Christianity IS a religion of love. The Gospels make this quite clear. As Jesus predicted, many antichrists have come and gone that have claimed to be Christian but were not really so. The self-righteous, hateful bigots many Atheists think of when they think of Christians are not actually Christians at all. True Christians should love gays, Muslims, Atheists, and everybody.

      In the Gospels one very important scene that represents Christ's acceptance of others is known as "Jesus and the Centurion" (Luke 7:1-10). In this scene, Jesus heals the servant of a Pagan Roman Centurion and then compliments him for his trust. Jesus does not say "Abandon your idol-worshipping" or "Not until you bow down and worship me", but "I have not even found such great faith in Israel". Christians should act like this.

      May 25, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • OMG

      so many "Christians" who seemed to be happy that they were going to be taken away, while the rest of humanity was going to suffer AND it didn't seem to bother them in the least.

      If your house was flooding and I came by on a boat and you didn't get on that boat and just said "naaa I don't believe it will flood".

      I am then responsible for your life when it flooded and you drown? Should I be upset that I got on the boat and got saved?

      May 26, 2011 at 12:22 am |
    • Ron

      OMG,
      to me, your statement is a cop out.
      I would not worship a god that acts like this nor would I ever follow one.
      I have no beef with Christians, in general but as far as conservative/evangel Christians, I honestly have no use for them.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • News Flash

      Ron,

      Really? You actually feel everyone else is responsible for your decisions? You are that self centered? Maybe you don't like the idea you have the freedom to choose, God should choose for you. It would be better that way, then you couldn't complain.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:59 am |
    • Julius X

      "If your house was flooding and I came by on a boat and you didn't get on that boat and just said "naaa I don't believe it will flood".

      I am then responsible for your life when it flooded and you drown? Should I be upset that I got on the boat and got saved?"

      OMG..You should have proof read your statement above or think first before posting it, that you may realize that actual incident or happening is very much diffrerent from just a mere prediction.

      May 26, 2011 at 4:49 am |
    • pointless excuses

      Julius X,

      OMG..You should have proof read your statement above or think first before posting it, that you may realize that actual incident or happening is very much diffrerent from just a mere prediction.

      Really? Ya think? That's called metaphorically speaking, you should read before you throw insults.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:02 am |
    • excuseless points

      @pointless

      Exactly it was a methapor, a metaphor of an ant to an elephant. OMG deserves such insults.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:23 am |
    • terri

      @pointless excuses

      Sorry you are wrong, it stands, in case you misunderstood; the metaphor was to illustrate someones lack of accountability for their own actions. Unless you too feel the need for someone wipe you after a dump.

      May 26, 2011 at 5:36 am |
    • myklds

      @ terri... The symbol used in a methapor may not literally represent real thing being represented but should express something about it through a vivid comparison.

      If you have notice, OMG was quoting Ron from the latter's post criticizing camping and his followers. (And if you will dig a lil deeper) you will realise that he has used the metaphor of flooded house (that must not be neglected) to symbolizes likewise to justify and defend the the (failed) prophecy of camping's. However, an actual happening doesn't make a vivid comparison for a prediction. Hence, the metaphor fails.

      May 26, 2011 at 6:47 am |
    • myklds

      symbolize*

      May 26, 2011 at 6:49 am |
    • Frogist

      @OMG: Whether the person got in your boat or didn't, you should not exalt in joy at their demise or look forward to their destruction. There is no love or empathy in that position which makes it a fair criticism of Christians who say they are adhering to a religion of love.

      May 26, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
  20. Steve

    Take a look at this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KlMWzKj4s&feature=player_embedded#at=141

    May 25, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.